Ben Mauk had surgery the day after Christmas - which, I guess, shouldn't be a surprise, considering he was very close to not playing the Pizza Bowl game. The fact he played so well and won the game's MVP was pretty impressive. Even more so when the doctors opened his shoulder and found what BK called "a mess."

"The kid," BK said, "persevered through that."

link to full post

I dont think it was all that impressive.. though his play was. Cincy should have won that bowl.. and by more than 10. any 9-3 bcs team should dominate a 7-5 non bcs.

goodknightfl Wrote:I dont think it was all that impressive.. though his play was. Cincy should have won that bowl.. and by more than 10. any 9-3 bcs team should dominate a 7-5 non bcs.

With an injured QB? Yeah, right.

Nice to see the support for your conference mates, too.

Bearcat Fan, did you really expect anything different from GKF on this one? UC didn't play the perfect game vs. USM, but the voters have spoken!

Plus, he usually sticks up for the ACC more than C-USA anyway. BTW, Good Knight, you have a comment about the ACC's bowl performance?

I don't think the win is any more impressive, but as stated above, Mauk's individual performance stands out.

goodknightfl Wrote:I dont think it was all that impressive.. though his play was. Cincy should have won that bowl.. and by more than 10. any 9-3 bcs team should dominate a 7-5 non bcs.

Again, I notice you refuse to answer my question. Ohio State barely beat a 7-7 Cincinnati team when we were non-BCS, several years back and they went on to win the national title. And West Virginia barely beat a non-BCS ECU squad that finished under .500 and WVU went on to win the Sugar Bowl. So, please tell me how Cincinnati's win over USM "wasn't impressive". The pollster clearly disagree with you, they put us in the Top 20 after the season ended. Stop being jealous of UC.

BJUnklFkr Wrote:Bearcat Fan, did you really expect anything different from GKF on this one? UC didn't play the perfect game vs. USM, but the voters have spoken!

Plus, he usually sticks up for the ACC more than C-USA anyway. BTW, Good Knight, you have a comment about the ACC's bowl performance?

no problem there.. the ACC stunk.. as for CUSA.. It is what it is.. a non bcs conf.. better than a couple.. and lagging behind a couple.. long term it has more upside than any non bcs. It wouldn't have mattered what 9-3 bcs team played a 7-5 non bcs ... they should not only win.. but win big. Just a side not.. Cincy should have been ranked... congrats.

goodknightfl Wrote:

BJUnklFkr Wrote:Bearcat Fan, did you really expect anything different from GKF on this one? UC didn't play the perfect game vs. USM, but the voters have spoken!

Plus, he usually sticks up for the ACC more than C-USA anyway. BTW, Good Knight, you have a comment about the ACC's bowl performance?

no problem there.. the ACC stunk.. as for CUSA.. It is what it is.. a non bcs conf.. better than a couple.. and lagging behind a couple.. long term it has more upside than any non bcs. It wouldn't have mattered what 9-3 bcs team played a 7-5 non bcs ... they should not only win.. but win big. Just a side not.. Cincy should have been ranked... congrats.

Again, you're conveniently ignoring my posts about West Virginia and Ohio State being in similar situations. They didn't blow out C-USA schools either. I guess I would ignore my post to when it makes you argument look silly and stupid. The eventual national champions beat a 7-7 C-USA school by 4 points. Eventual Sugar Bowl champions West Virginia beat a 5-6 C-USA school by 5 points. So, again, why are you complaining about Cincinnati "onlu" beating a 7-5 C-USA school by double-digits again?

goodknightfl Wrote:as for CUSA.. It is what it is.. a non bcs conf.. better than a couple..

At least you were correct there!

11 CONFERENCE USA (A) = 59.54 60.06 ( 10) 12
12 COLONIAL (AA)= 59.52 59.33 ( 12) 12
13 SUN BELT (A) = 59.19 59.25 ( 13) 8

obviously you didnt see the game cause UC was up 31-7 and they gave up late td's

irishfan83 Wrote:obviously you didnt see the game cause UC was up 31-7 and they gave up late td's

Cincinnati dominated that bowl game. A turnover early gave USM an easy TD then UC blew them off of the field. The D got a little lazy later in the game. What impressed me is that the last 2 games vs. USM (2004 and the bowl game) UC smoked the best of CUSA, USM.
Hey knight what about when SEC teams barely beat USM?

goodknightfl Wrote:Cincy should have been ranked... congrats.

Thank you

yes other bcs teams have underachieved in games.. Mich comes to mind.. this thread wasnt about them..

Your welcome.. I call em like I see them.. Cincy deserves to be ranked..

Cincy being ranked is not a matter of debate. The only discussion is how high. Their frustration that IF they had played in another bowl and been able to beat Wake or Oregon their ranking would be higher is understandable. It was not meant to be however.

They are set up to have no ceiling next year.

LaRue777 Wrote:Cincy being ranked is not a matter of debate. The only discussion is how high. Their frustration that IF they had played in another bowl and been able to beat Wake or Oregon their ranking would be higher is understandable. It was not meant to be however.

They are set up to have no ceiling next year.

I think we were about right, although in the coaches' poll we got screwed a bit. Would have loved to see top 15, but not complaining.

If we're honest about it, there were some weaknesses in this year's team. There is, in fact, no ceiling if they can get ironed out.

goodknightfl Wrote:I dont think it was all that impressive.. though his play was. Cincy should have won that bowl.. and by more than 10. any 9-3 bcs team should dominate a 7-5 non bcs.

It looks like nobody cares for your opinion.

And I seem to remember USC falling on their face, @ home no less, to Pac 10 doormat, Stanford. So what?

LaRue777 Wrote:Cincy being ranked is not a matter of debate. The only discussion is how high. Their frustration that IF they had played in another bowl and been able to beat Wake or Oregon their ranking would be higher is understandable. It was not meant to be however.

They are set up to have no ceiling next year.

but then again... had they played in a higher bowl and loss they wouldnt be ranked at all.. be happy for where u are... don't make asumptions on how things would have worked out if different.

Of course Cincy might not have won if they played in another bowl. That doesn't change the fact that teams want to prove themselves against the best team possible. The BE bowl lineup did not afford them that luxury.

I agree that Cincy should have been expected to win with their record. The same could be said if USF or Connecticut played in the game. These teams also had a great shot at being ranked with a final bowl win.