rocketfootball Wrote:Does Rome still have an army?

The Vatican has it's own guard and it's surrounded by Rome...?? :D

rocketfootball Wrote:Wow! 24 times is better than some schools from BCS conferences. Not that I am denying it, but I noticed 12 games were against MAC teams. Has Marshall been on national TV another 12 times?

It is interesting to see that Toledo has been on TV 8 times, even though we have played the following games without TV and I think they probably should have been:

1997 - Purdue @ Toledo (Won)
1998 - Toledo @ Ohio State (Lost)
1999 - Syracuse @ Toledo (Lost)
2001 - Minnesota @ Toledo (Won)
2002 - Toledo @ Minnesota (Lost)
2002 - Toledo @ Pittsburgh (Lost)

We also played Temple twice (home in 1998 and away in 2001; winning both times), but even though the are in a BCS conference I can understand those games not being on TV.

rf,
I remember sitting in Damon's in my hometown in 1998 watching BG/Penn St on one big screen and UT/Ohio St on the next big screen. BG lost 48-3 and UT lost 49-0 so neither did anything that day :rolleyes:

Your thoughts?

Falconfreak90 Wrote:rf,
I remember sitting in Damon's in my hometown in 1998 watching BG/Penn St on one big screen and UT/Ohio St on the next big screen. BG lost 48-3 and UT lost 49-0 so neither did anything that day :rolleyes:

Your thoughts?

That was a terrible day. OSU finished 2nd in the nation that year because of a loss to MSU.

That game was picked up by Channel 13, but was not nationally televised. I think both UT and BG would give OSU a much better game these days.

Of course, what is being overlooked here is this obvious fact:

EMU is undefeated on national TV!! So, there.

Quote:Fresno State didn't use illegal players in that 1985 game like UNLV did against us in 1984.  

speaking of using illegal players...don't compensated props and non-qualifiers usually have to be declared ineligible and then reinstated? And if none of this happens, and say, you play them, and win games with them that make you eligible for a say, a Championship, and then, you play them in that championship, and say, win, and then you use those guys in a Bowl, and say, win. Well, if all these games/wins were based on the use of what should have been declared ineligible players, shouldn't they then be forefeited?

and what if, in addition, you used other impermissible advantages? Then chestbeating about those wins would be, well, laughable, no? :D

axeme Wrote:

great pic