BG, a 22 point dog to the Badgers.

You put 2-1 CMU with a win over a BIG10 team (albeit a bad one) lower than an 0-3 UMass.


I don't know what to think of that.

(09-15-2014 12:09 PM)george14 Wrote:  You put 2-1 CMU with a win over a BIG10 team (albeit a bad one) lower than an 0-3 UMass.


I don't know what to think of that.

I'm assuming this must have been a ranking of this week's performances?

CMU looked bad against SU this week, but at 2-1 with a blowout win over Purdue on the road (who hung with ND this weekend BTW), they have to be above an 0-3 UMass team, a 1-2 Ohio team with a squeaker win over an awful Kent team and two blowout losses, and a 1-2 BSU team who just lost at home to an FCS squad. CMU is at worst #5 right now, despite the poor showing this weekend. UMass ALMOST wins a game and somehow that makes them better than a 2-1 squad? You don't happen to live in Colorado do you???

(09-15-2014 09:50 AM)exCincy Kid1 Wrote:  How in the world will we be able to field 4-5 credible bowl teams?

Maybe they won't be credible bowl teams, but by beating the hell out of each other!
MACtion!

Toledo should be ahead of Ball State and Ohio IMO. Cincinnati and Missouri will both put up a lot of points this year.

(09-15-2014 12:09 PM)george14 Wrote:  You put 2-1 CMU with a win over a BIG10 team (albeit a bad one) lower than an 0-3 UMass.


I don't know what to think of that.

When your most recent game is a loss to an FCS team at home (BSU) or a 40-3 throttling at home (CMU) by a team that had to play two overtimes to beat an FCS team at home the previous week, you can't then reasonably complain about where somebody ranks your team this week.

(09-15-2014 03:46 PM)LongtimeFan Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 12:09 PM)george14 Wrote:  You put 2-1 CMU with a win over a BIG10 team (albeit a bad one) lower than an 0-3 UMass.


I don't know what to think of that.

When your most recent game is a loss to an FCS team at home (BSU) or a 40-3 throttling at home (CMU) by a team that had to play two overtimes to beat an FCS team at home the previous week, you can't then reasonably complain about where somebody ranks your team this week.

If we're using that logic, then you must also say CMU went on the road and blew out a team that the #11 team struggled with most of the game at a neutral site. And ranking an 0-3 team who has one win in each of the last two seasons ahead of a 2-1 team (or any team with a win for that matter) is asinine.

(09-14-2014 01:03 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 01:00 PM)HuskieJWN Wrote:  Now I'm gonna somewhat contradict myself since I said choosing who's better than who is grasping straws, it was directed at Toledo BG.

There is no way Ohio is #4. I mean Kentucky looks better than expected so that loss isn't horrible, but yesterday was an embarrassment. Their only win is a 3 point win over an atrocious Kent team.

Pretty much what Nick said: they don't deserve to be #4, but no one else does either.

Marshall is better than Kentucky.

(09-14-2014 08:31 PM)HuskieJWN Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 05:25 PM)ncchip Wrote:  

Quote:Things just got difficult for Ball state to go bowling. They needed to get to 7 wins for bowl eligibility with two FCS teams. With games vs army, niu, Toledo, BG, Akron, and CMU all bowl type teams could be tough.

I thought the rule was you could only count one FCS victory per season for bowl eligibility; if I am correct the loss to Indiana State had no effect on the six win requirement. If someone has a better understanding of the rules please clarify.

I guess I just assumed you had to get 7 wins since they don't usually lose to FCS teams. Maybe you're correct.

That's brutal though, you schedule two FCS teams which shouldn't happen in the first place, then they lose. Not exactly what they thought would happen I bet.

This is correct. 6 wins is the requirement, so the ISU game meant nothing in either case, though the loss is very hard to take.

As for scheduling two FCS games, I'm reasonably certain it happened due to games being moved around and such, and the Colgate game was the only game available (or maybe the only home game available) after the dust settled. I hope LTF or someone corrects me if I'm wrong here, but that's my memory of the situation. And it may have all started with the AD killing the home-and-home with the other FCS school that the prior AD so unwisely scheduled. Was definitely a cluster of a schedule no doubt, but I don't think it was really what was intended by Pete.

And I agree... BSU is way overranked here based on their current play. The offense has been conservative and not impressive, and the passing defense is rather porous.

(09-15-2014 11:33 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Going for 2 when they did made good sense...

I don't agree with that at all! And it was proven at the end of the game.

If he kicks the point there as he should, they would not have needed a TD on that last drive so a FG would have won it*. Thankfully they got it to win the game, but that was not a good decision with that much time left. You had to expect that Indiana would come back and score another TD as they hadn't stopped them all half.

But yes I agree...Babers has lots of work to do...but keep in mind they're still learning a new system from all new coaches.

*However, I did a scan a year or so ago of BG football history as far back as I could find sufficient game details, and I did not find one game EVER that BG won on a last second field goal. Not one!

Villanova might be FCS but used to be a huge rival with Syracuse so it makes sense they'd play them difficult.

BGSU ran 113 plays....there were games under Clawson that we didn't see 113 plays from both teams. Not saying one approach is more valid than the other, but I find Babers style of play to be more fun to watch.

If James Knapke had thrown a more accurate ball in the first half, BG wouldn't have needed to worry about XP's or FG's. It was his second start so you have to expect some growing pains, but there were a number of completed passes in the first half that would have gained significantly more yards had he hit the reciever in stride instead of forcing them to stop, bend or reach back to make the catch. I think we left at least 2-3 tD's on the table in that first half.

(09-16-2014 09:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 11:33 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Going for 2 when they did made good sense...

I don't agree with that at all! And it was proven at the end of the game.

The game they won?

Going for two early in the game is a bad move, I'd agree. Too many other scores can happen.

But this was in the 4Q. That's the right time to do it. Especially when worst case is a 4pt lead.

But that may assume at team defense exists.

(09-16-2014 10:45 AM)El Grande Flippero Wrote:  BGSU ran 113 plays....there were games under Clawson that we didn't see 113 plays from both teams. Not saying one approach is more valid than the other, but I find Babers style of play to be more fun to watch.

If James Knapke had thrown a more accurate ball in the first half, BG wouldn't have needed to worry about XP's or FG's. It was his second start so you have to expect some growing pains, but there were a number of completed passes in the first half that would have gained significantly more yards had he hit the reciever in stride instead of forcing them to stop, bend or reach back to make the catch. I think we left at least 2-3 tD's on the table in that first half.

Yeah, I was looking at the box score today and that's nuts lol.

Anyone see Buffalo recover a fumble in the 2nd half but it was ruled Baylor recovered, and then Baylor scored on their first play of that drive?
The official had ruled it didn't matter who recovered it because Buffalo had pretty much lost at that point anyway.

It's just upsetting when the officials don't want to follow the rules. How can we expect them to follow the rules in other cases too?

(09-15-2014 09:50 AM)exCincy Kid1 Wrote:  Other than NIU this is shaping up to be the worst year in MAC football in quite some time...so many uncompetitive teams this year! Ugly!

How in the world will we be able to field 4-5 credible bowl teams?

Because when MAC play starts, 6 MAC teams are assured of a win each week.

(09-16-2014 12:27 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Anyone see Buffalo recover a fumble in the 2nd half but it was ruled Baylor recovered, and then Baylor scored on their first play of that drive?
The official had ruled it didn't matter who recovered it because Buffalo had pretty much lost at that point anyway.

It's just upsetting when the officials don't want to follow the rules. How can we expect them to follow the rules in other cases too?

Was this meant for another thread?

(09-16-2014 09:21 AM)rocketinchitown Wrote:  Villanova might be FCS but used to be a huge rival with Syracuse so it makes sense they'd play them difficult.

Cuse also did not have their starting QB the second half against Nova. He was ejected for throwing a punch. Unfortunately for CMU they did not suspend him for the next game.

(09-15-2014 03:46 PM)LongtimeFan Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 12:09 PM)george14 Wrote:  You put 2-1 CMU with a win over a BIG10 team (albeit a bad one) lower than an 0-3 UMass.


I don't know what to think of that.

When your most recent game is a loss to an FCS team at home (BSU) or a 40-3 throttling at home (CMU) by a team that had to play two overtimes to beat an FCS team at home the previous week, you can't then reasonably complain about where somebody ranks your team this week.

I'll say it again, UMass is 0-3. CMU is 2-1 with a BIG10 win. Are we going to forget that CMU was missing their best 2 players? I suggest you look up the word reasonable.

(09-16-2014 03:44 PM)george14 Wrote:  CMU is 2-1 with a BIG10 win. Are we going to forget that CMU was missing their best 2 players? I suggest you look up the word reasonable.

Sad that they let rawls play even with the charge pending from may or whenever he decided to steal that woman's purse. Guess they really wanted that B1G win.