2010 College Football Discussion

Why not one of these?:D

Ill start here is a good article from 3 different views on why or why not ND should join the Big 10

http://cfn.scout.com/2/969536.html

I personally dont like ND at all, and would love to see them go to the Big 10 and get handled for most of the year. After reading this I think its actually a toss-up if they should go or not. ND has all the perks of being an IND and seem to be a no brainer to go. But as points were made they would have something that the IND doesnt have, a reason to play each game week in and week out. Dont get me wrong they should but the schedule would actually mean something and they would be playing for a conference championship. IMO the IND should be for the service schools.

Ha... I was just about to start one of these to talk about the same topic. Big 10 guys, what are your thoughts on expansion? What teams would you like to see come over if they do expand? Nebraska a good fit?

Personally, if they expand to more than 12 schools, and set off a chain reaction of conference changes, I want Nebraska to join. If the Big 12 can remain untouched, I wouldn't mind Nebraska staying but I don't think that'll happen. If the conferences do expand in the future the Big 12 has little potential as far as schools to snatch up. TCU, Houston, New Mexico St? Unimpressive to me at best & all would further shift the balance of the conference south which is not in the best interest of Nebraska. I am far more interested in seeing Nebraska in a conference with Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Notre Dame(though I doubt they join), Wisonsin & Iowa than stuck with Texas, Oklahoma & a bunch of also rans. Not to mention Dan Beebe (Big 12 commissioner) is the most idiotic, reactive and biased commissioner in the history of sports!

To me Nebraska has to be forward thinking in this situation & think of the potential to be left holding the bag should other conferences expand significantly. Thoughts?

I don't like the idea of football conferences bigger than 12 teams. But if the Big 10 goes that route Nebraska would be great to have. I think Pitt would be a good addition and obviously Notre Dame would be good. Syracuse has tradition and an east coast presense (sp?) so they would be OK. I don't care about Mizzou or Rutgers or UConn if they come over.

I do think there is some truth that Notre Dame could be exposed if they joined a real conference. I feel the same way about Boise St. That's a good program whose best chance to ever make the championship game is to simply play one tough ooc game and go 12-0. That team would be a good team in a conference but never a title contender.

As for Michigan, I hate Rich Rod. I hate his outdated spread offense where throwing the ball more than 10 yards downfield is only required when trailing. Oregon's offense is a lot better to watch. And going to a 3-3-5 in the Big 10 was dumb and remains dumb. I still don't understand it. I hope he gets fired.

I completely agree about Boise St... Winning one or two or even three games vs BCS opponents a year does not prove anything to me. The reason it's so tough to go undefeated in a BCS conference is that week after week you have to prepare for teams full of talent. Even Iowa State is loaded with guys that, for the most part, either couldn't fit into a recruiting class for a major power, or maybe just weren't tall enough, or something to that effect. When you play so many teams with talent back to back to back it's easy to have a bad week or make a mistake that costs you a game.

Our loss to Iowa St this year was a perfect example of this. 6 or 7 turnovers 3 or 4 of which inside the 15 yd line. 95% of the time you lose that game in a BCS conference. We even had the best scoring defense in the country last year & sometimes that high talent level will get ya.

I agree with most, Nebraska, ND, PITT and Cuse would all be very good fits in the Big Ten. To me Nebraska just seems like a big 10 team. I dont agree with Boise and TCU being exposed if they played in a BCS conf. Yes thier confs are not the same as playing in the SEC or Big 12 or any BCS conf at that. But they have recruited very good players where they are now, but give them the extra edge of we play in "X" conf and you will get "X" number of games on TV. They will get more money and therfore facilities will be better and they will be able to recruit with the guys in "X" conf.

I think Boise and TCU could do well in a BCS conference but that means going 8-4 or 9-3 with possibly going 10-2 once in awhile. Winning conference championships year in and year out would be a pipe dream for them in the Big 12 or PAC 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texacotea

But they have recruited very good players where they are now, but give them the extra edge of we play in "X" conf and you will get "X" number of games on TV. They will get more money and therfore facilities will be better and they will be able to recruit with the guys in "X" conf.

---

I have no doubt that's true. But I don't think their current rosters (or those from the last 4-5 years) would consistently win 9-10+ games a year in a BCS conference. Without the wins they don't get those high caliber players. It's a double edged sword. It would definitely be interesting to see & I'd love to see em prove me wrong. I just hate when they point at the 1 or 2 games per year they win agains BCS level talent & say it's proof they could hack it in a BCS conference. They are impressive wins, no doubt, but it's the consistently high level of competition that costs a lot of great teams a couple games a year in a top notch conference.

Seems like there are a quite a few Nebraska fans here. I've even thought about using them in NCAA 11 but they will probably be too good to start out with. Anyways, here was an older article on the fans of Nebraska and how classy they are. I hope that never changes.

http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.d...B_OEM_ID=100)/

Classic college football is on ESPN Classic and OU and OSU featuring Barry Sanders is on now

As a Nebraska fan, I'm not sure I like joining the Big 10 if they go the super-conference (14+ teams) route. That would spell the end of our quasi-rivalries with KSU & CU and a new foe (Iowa?) would have to be our day after Thanksgiving foe if that tradition continued. The continuous games played streak vs. Kansas would end and Missouri would be our lone 'rivalry' left. Of course new ones would likely be established in the Big 10, but that kind of thing takes time. It also could hurt the recruiting connections in Texas and put NU into the stereotypical '3 yards and a cloud of dust' Big 10. NU hasn't had strong recruiting ties on the east coast since the mid-90s. I'm probably too old school in my thinking - to me, I prefer conferences like the old Big 8 and Pac-10 now where you play every conference foe. Doesn't leave any doubts on who is #1, but we won't see that again in the age of conference championship games.

There was a good conversation on CFB Live the other day on Notre Dame and the Big 10. Should the Big 10 go to 14/16 teams, maybe they add extra conference games to the schedule and that keeps ND from having a schedule full of B10 teams like they do now. Granted, they could probably then fill up the schedule with patsies to inflate their record, but they felt ND might feel the pinch to join the B10 or maybe even the Big East so they are on the inside of the super-conference bubble which may be coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kwizzy

Big 10 guys, what are your thoughts on expansion? What teams would you like to see come over if they do expand? Nebraska a good fit?

---

If it's just 12, it's Notre Dame, Texas, or bust. I see no reason to expand to 12 if we're not adding the Irish or the Longhorns. Nebraska is a really good candidate, but just doesn't quite bring enough to justify all the other issues we'd have to think about with 12 (divisions, CCG, etc).

Now, if we go to 16 like people are saying, I'd like to see Notre Dame, Nebraska, Rutgers, Missouri, and ... Syracuse is a logical choice for #5, but so is Pitt. And I'd still, personally, like to see Texas in the Big 10. But that's all for purely selfish reasons, I can't see it actually happening.

I've been reading Frank the Tank's blog since all of this expansion talk really blew up, and I really like his piece on the possible 16-team combinations. That's partly due to being a Star Wars geek and loving his metaphors of the "Death Star Conference". He later suggested the possiblity of a Super Death Star Conference consisting of adding Notre Dame, Texas, Texas A&M, Syracuse and Nebraska.

It would never happen. Ever. But I would love it.

Nebraska don't leave us!!! Haha, if Nebraska leaves, the Big 12 suddenly becomes something of a one-sided joke (even MORE so than it has been). The Big 10 could benefit from expansion and while I think they'd definitely do well with Nebraska, I just don't like the ramifications for the Big 12.

I don't think it'd be good for college football as a whole. A move like that would have the ramifications of 3 "Super Conferences". The SEC, Big 10 (+3), and an Pac 10/Big 12 hybrid (made to catch up). Anything even close to this would dilute college football, bring an end to rivalries, and culminating in a regular season that means less and less to fans and teams.

That's just my perspective, and while I'm not so optimistic, it sure would be interesting!

No matter who they choose, I believe, if any teams from the Big 12 and/or Big East join the Big Ten, the conference that was left is screwed. The Big 12 is pretty much in death throes right now ... no matter who we bring from the Big 12, if anyone, it's going to have major ramifications for the Big 12.

Also, cdj, I think if anyone from the Big 12 is going to fit in the "3 yards and a cloud" Big Ten, it's Nebraska. Plus, tradition and all that. Yes, you'll lose your rivalries (and I love Neb/Colo, so I hate that), but Big Ten fans will embrace Nebraska, in my opinion.

The one drawback I read about with Nebraska is that their lower academic standards will put the other Big 10 schools at a disadvantage in recruiting. Thoughts on that?

Also, I just heard that Michigan is supposed to announce some self-imposed sanctions on May 24.

I can't believe people are saying Texas. That is by far the dumbest thing. People have to keep in mind this isn't just for football this is for other sports and the distance between other big ten schools and Texas is quite far.

Yes, self-imposed sanctions. Completely taking the high road on this one and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves to what goes on in college football.

I'm not sure I'm a big fan of super-conference expansion. Not a big fan of impacting the OSU/UM rivalry game, so if there were different divisions in the B10, I think those two teams should be in the same division so that they always play with no chance of rematch on the conference championship game because that would water down the rivalry IMO. With that in mind, a BIG addition would need to be added to the other division to equal things out, so you don't have the B12's issue of the weak north and the strong south divisions. I mean, who really cares about the north division in the B12? Besides an upset of the south every now and then in the conf champ game, nobody.

I like Nebraska for the name and tradition it would bring to the B10, plus their fans are very cool and fun in my limited experience with them at the Alamo Bowl a couple years back. Scott Frost's mom is an insult to their fanbase, I must add.
I'd be fine with PITT. I like 'Cuse well enough, but I don't think they bring enough to the table. Same with Rutgers. Mizzou? Eh, except you know they bring a big TV market so the commishes of various conferences are always looking at those dollars. Texas? Wow, that would be impressive and great to bring that money and exposure aboard the B10, but geographically that is tough on athletes, etc. I mean, could you imagine the basketball teams traveling that far for what amounts to a 2 hour game?

Most of the teams being mentioned are mid-level additions, so it comes down to which ones spark more TV money or which might be a powerhouse in the major sports to make the conference stronger.

I won't lie, I haven't been doing a lot of reading on this stuff.

Agreed. Not to mention Texas wouldn't take a step down to the Big 10 for no reason. No offense to the Big 10, but if you're Texas, you're not going to move from a conference where you'll always have a chance to win and it's relatively competitive to a conference where it's much more competitive, and a conference that often doesn't get its due justice with regard to the strength of its teams.

The only way Texas is moving is if it's reactionary to Nebraska leaving, and it won't be to the Big 10... Hello SEC, or Hello Pac 10.

Quote:

---

relatively competitive to a conference where it's much more competitive, and a conference that often doesn't get its due justice with regard to the strength of its teams.

---

Wow, I'm not used to seeing that from people outside the B10 area. Usually it is everyone over the past several years clamoring how the B10 sucks compared to other confs. LOL.

Texas is a monster money-wise. While it would be a great strength of conference move and would be another step up TV-wise for exposure for UT, I can't see Texas being viable.
The Pac10 needs Texas more than the SEC or B10, really. It would do them the greatest good in giving them more exposure to the East Coast and middle of the country which they sorely need.

The thing I don't like......if these super-confs come to be, all the little guys are left out in the cold more than they are now, and they are even less likely to be able to get their foot in the big boys' door for the big bowls, i.e. money.

I don't like how money is the cause for everything. Just let the kids play football. They are 18-20 years old.

Blame the BCS. That is the simple way. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy

As for Michigan, I hate Rich Rod. I hate his outdated spread offense where throwing the ball more than 10 yards downfield is only required when trailing. Oregon's offense is a lot better to watch. And going to a 3-3-5 in the Big 10 was dumb and remains dumb. I still don't understand it. I hope he gets fired.

---

Right. Ask UGa and OU how that offense and defense worked out in bowl games. That defense destroyed OU, absolutely man-handled them. The only power team to worry about in the B10 is Wisconsin. Most others are running spread variants. Eh, Iowa and MSU run power sometimes, but nothing that impressive that can't be shut down unless resorting to the lazy-ass strength and conditioning and lack of fire that plagued the last several years of the Carr-led teams.
Ask Carr how playing teams employing run spreads or at least mobile QBs in passing spreads were so easy on his teams. The only spread teams that UM defense had success against? Purdue which is a passing spread and UF in his last bowl game because they gambled huge with blitzing the safety constantly. Tebow is still picking turf out of his headgear because of Jamar Adams.
What kind of defense are you recommending specifically?

Yes, Rich needs to expand the passing game, but to say the offense can't work is premature and incorrect. Yes, they do need run better compliment routes, as the routes don't combo well and they've failed to hit the TE (QB's fault this past year moreso than the play design) in the middle of the field.
Don't blame the offense for not getting the ball downfield when the QB playing it is too afraid to do so and is checking down to short routes constantly. Coincidentally, the longer routes are there.......guess which of the 3 schollie QBs was hitting them and LOOKING for them in the spring and which 2 weren't? THAT is as big of a problem as any.

You can't blame Rich Rod for everything IMO, his offense worked at WVU and this year hopefully he has the quarterback (Denard) to run the offense now that he's been here for a year.

I just want to say I don't see Texas moving to the SEC. Too far to the West. I realize Arkansas, and I guess it could work though the East would have to pick someone up and I'm not sure who unless Ga. Tech were to come back to the SEC... that or pry Clemson or FSU... or Miami from the ACC.

Otherwise I'm not sure. I know my school is starting a football program in 2012 and would love to join the SEC. Nothing like getting annihilated every game of the year.

I don't believe in the 3-3-5 period. I think it's more of a gimmick defense that teams without talent use to try to cover up problems. Michigan is a big program. You run a 4-3 or a 3-4 against base offenses and you bring in the extra DB for nickel (and dime). They tried to justify saying they liked running the 3-3-5 because they could use the same personel in the nickel and it develops consistently. I don't agree with that.

Michigan's offense hasn't had a lot of talent the last two years. My frustration with Rich Rod extends to many levels. I don't think he used the little talent he did have in year one properly. He's finally starting to get guys to fit his system but what guys are those? Gone are the days of having drop back QBs move on to the NFL or having top RBs and WRs make an impact on the next level. Those aren't the guys he's looking for. Sometimes I think his system is best suited for a school that doesn't get the best talent and has to come up with different things to win. UM doesn't have to do that. They can get the 5* guys.

I'm not as big a Michigan fan as you guys are. I don't live and breathe Michigan but I'd rather they get a coach and go back to a more traditional approach. Just my two cents.

Man, you don't know how many things were broken in the closing years of the Carr-led teams. The smoke was there and the fire was starting, but many a regular fan or someone who just looked at records didn't see it. What was noticeable on the field was though if you looked at scores and how games were won. Unfortunate.

That manifested itself in the final two years plus the first year of the RichRod era. I'm seeing things flipping though, and the swell is starting to look very big.

Look at VaTech's defense. They aren't that big. They aren't loaded on the DL. Yet, they are bringing pressure from all over and do cover well with speed all over, and they haven't had problems playing defense against many teams.
See, you are thinking it is 5 DBs playing, but the two safeties up tight are more like a regular safety and an undersized LB/oversized safety who can cover.
RichRod loves speed. Speed is disruptive (as long as the players do what they are assigned to do). Greg Robinson is not an idiot.
The key to this year's defense will be if Ezeh and Mouton step up like the upperclassmen that they are or if they continue to underperform, at which point they'll get yanked. The gap to 2nd string has closed enough that they aren't the only options anymore. This defense is still young, but it will play faster than the poor defense that Carr was rolling out.

Quote:

---

I don't think he used the little talent he did have in year one properly

---

How so? There was squat on offense on that team, and it would have been silly to run an one year offense which would have delayed the development of the true freshmen.

Quote:

---

Gone are the days of having drop back QBs move on to the NFL or having top RBs and WRs make an impact on the next level. Those aren't the guys he's looking for. Sometimes I think his system is best suited for a school that doesn't get the best talent and has to come up with different things to win. UM doesn't have to do that. They can get the 5* guys.

---

I don't buy that. If lower-rated/lower-talented players can be successful in a certain system, so can the highly-talented guys. Those NFL studs and 4 and 5-star talents lost to App. St. and got flat-out humiliated against Oregon. And got flat punked by Iowa at HOME earlier in the 2000s. And got slapped around by Oregon at Oregon earlier in the 2000s. I liked Carr. But his teams were too entitled and did not play with fire and nastiness. That alone is a huge program shift and a very welcome one for many UM insiders.

They have a coach, and he's more like Bo thankfully than Carr.

Quote:

---

I just want to say I don't see Texas moving to the SEC. Too far to the Pac10.

---

Just like it is too far to the B10 IMO.

AustinWolv - you sure are passionate about the Wolverines lol. I hope they do well this year although we'll just have to disagree on some of the schemes. I prefer a traditional approach on defense with a multi-formation look on offense. Florida has proven that their system can win it all while Bama, LSU and USC have shown traditional approaches can still get it done. There is more than one way to do it which makes football interesting. Either way I don't think Michigan can do much worse than they have the last two years. That's pretty much impossible.

Quote:

---

AustinWolv - you sure are passionate about the Wolverines

---

You have no idea. ;)

Quote:

---

I prefer a traditional approach on defense with a multi-formation look on offense.

---

I could actually care less about schemes, as long as players are flying to the ball and causing chaos. I like aggression and nasty attitude on defense. Let players play.

Utah doesn't play traditional, yet they win. Same with Boise St. Same with VaTech. Same with Oregon. Same with with Cincy. Same with OU.
Talent wins games in college, not schemes.

LSU has lost some games they should not have.

TCU has had stout defense as of late and run 3-man fronts, as have Boise St.
If your players are fast, they disrupt the blocking anyway, plus you can put 8 guys in the box but still have coverage. On any given play, you've got blitz possibility from 3 LBs and the 2 safeties......potentially CBs if you run guys out at the snap. Shifting players around can give a 4-3 or 3-4 look easily enough.

Considering half or so of the teams on the schedule play a spread variant, it makes sense to go with speed over girth, especially since you can bring in larger players to play a 4-3 Under look against power teams or sets (or merely shift to a different package within the 3-3), while it is harder to run a base 4-3 and force LBs to cover slots and such when you come up on a spread team. UM did that in the past and got A-B-U-S-E-D, if you don't recall the nightmare of watching Chris Graham chase receivers around.

Another few weeks until we find out if Demar Dorsey qualifies per Ann Arbor .com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AustinWolv

You have no idea. ;)

---

And yet ... you can stand me :D

Did I ever mention to you that I graduated high school in Boone, NC? Also known as home to Appalachian State? (hides)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

And yet ... you can stand me :D

Did I ever mention to you that I graduated high school in Boone, NC? Also known as home to Appalachian State? (hides)

---

You are so rude. (laugh)

Yeah, I can stand opposing fans that are rational and realistic. That is why I like Chris Spielman so much, and why you make the cut, Jeff. You are few and far between for OSU fans, that's for sure.

Yeah, yeah, Boone, eh? I block out the past few years and feel better every time I see this pic.

Attachment 39

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffHCross

And yet ... you can stand me :D

Did I ever mention to you that I graduated high school in Boone, NC? Also known as home to Appalachian State? (hides)

---

Booone. I'm sure we've had this discussion before. I have a lot of friends that go to Appalachian State, or did. They've all graduated. I'm going to school in Charlotte at UNCC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBlue

Another few weeks until we find out if Demar Dorsey qualifies per Ann Arbor .com

---

Best that I know right now is that he won't be coming to Ann Arbor. Been stated emphatically, as he'd have to nail test scores very well to qualify and there is not much optimism for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AustinWolv

Best that I know right now is that he won't be coming to Ann Arbor. Been stated emphatically, as he'd have to nail test scores very well to qualify and there is not much optimism for that.

---

Response from an Ann Arbor sports reporter on my twitter..

Quote:

---

Not good. Could qualify and not get admitted. Then maybe FSU. RT @its_flav: @davebirkett what do you think the odds of Dorsey getting in are

---

http://twitter.com/davebirkett/status/14225182109