(09-18-2015 05:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 04:47 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  0-3 is 0-3. It sucks

We started 1-3, with a really young team in 2006. Lost first game Pitt,
lost @PSU, lost @OSU. Finished 8-5.

In 2006 it was road games against Virginia Tech and Ohio State. Both highly ranked. Cats played five teams in the top 15 that year and five teams were really bad, the rest of the schedule included three decent teams. UC went 1-4 against the top 15, 2-1 against the ok teams, and 5-0 against the trash of the schedule.

Right now Louisville is 0-3 against three good teams. Cards are probably looking at 5 to 7 wins this year depending on how things break the rest of the way.

(09-17-2015 11:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  How about 1988 Michigan St. Started off 0-3 with losses to Rutgers(5-6), but then Notre Dame(12-0) and Florida St(11-1). Oh and they then tied(yeah it's that long ago) Iowa and lost to Michigan. So 0-4-1 with 3 losses to 3 of the top 4 teams. They finished 6-4-1. Oh, and they didn't go bowling(another thing that yeah, it's that long ago!)

Ah but the Spartans DID go bowling that season... lost 34-27 to Georgia in the Gator Bowl. (01/01/89). I remember it well because it was Vince Dooley's last game, he retired with a 201-77-10 overall record.

(09-18-2015 01:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 10:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 09:15 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 07:30 AM)goofus Wrote:  I am sure somebody will bring up a better example but back in the 60's and 70's, P5-level teams did not play G5 or FCS teams at all.

That's putting it too strongly, as we can find examples of such games (e.g., Cal played San Jose State throughout the 1970s). But it is true that back then, "P5" teams played far, far fewer G5/FCS games than they do now.

Yes, I should have spoke only for Iowa, who had some extremely hard schedules in the 70's.

Plus I admit it is confusing. Iowa also had games against PSU, Sryacuse, Pitt, Arizona and Utah in the 70's, who are all P5 now, but what were they considered then? G5?

In the 1970s, Arizona was not considered to be a "power" school until they joined the PAC in 1978. Penn State and Pitt were definitely major independents, along with Notre Dame. Syracuse was a tweener school, hard to peg down. Utah was off the map back then.

Ridiculous statement. Syracuse has always been a major independent just like Pitt and Penn State, until they joined the BE in 1991. That is a fact that doesn't change to support a ridiculous argument.

No, in the 1970s, Syracuse was clearly a peg down from Pitt/Penn State, not in the same class. A 'tweener', like many ACC schools were then even though Cuse wasn't in the ACC.

(09-18-2015 05:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 04:47 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  0-3 is 0-3. It sucks

We started 1-3, with a really young team in 2006. Lost first game Pitt,
lost @PSU, lost @OSU. Finished 8-5.

OK, so now if UConn wins their next game, they have to finish better than 8-5 to be the best 1-3 team ever.

Its good to have benchmarks.

(09-18-2015 08:11 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 05:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 04:47 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  0-3 is 0-3. It sucks

We started 1-3, with a really young team in 2006. Lost first game Pitt,
lost @PSU, lost @OSU. Finished 8-5.

OK, so now if UConn wins their next game, they have to finish better than 8-5 to be the best 1-3 team ever.

Its good to have benchmarks.

Huh?

(09-18-2015 08:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 01:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 10:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 09:15 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's putting it too strongly, as we can find examples of such games (e.g., Cal played San Jose State throughout the 1970s). But it is true that back then, "P5" teams played far, far fewer G5/FCS games than they do now.

Yes, I should have spoke only for Iowa, who had some extremely hard schedules in the 70's.

Plus I admit it is confusing. Iowa also had games against PSU, Sryacuse, Pitt, Arizona and Utah in the 70's, who are all P5 now, but what were they considered then? G5?

In the 1970s, Arizona was not considered to be a "power" school until they joined the PAC in 1978. Penn State and Pitt were definitely major independents, along with Notre Dame. Syracuse was a tweener school, hard to peg down. Utah was off the map back then.

Ridiculous statement. Syracuse has always been a major independent just like Pitt and Penn State, until they joined the BE in 1991. That is a fact that doesn't change to support a ridiculous argument.

No, in the 1970s, Syracuse was clearly a peg down from Pitt/Penn State, not in the same class. A 'tweener', like many ACC schools were then even though Cuse wasn't in the ACC.

You mean the same Syracuse who had won the national championship about 15 years earlier and was ranked top 12 all time in wins at the time and had played in multiple major bowls like the Gator, Cotton, Sugar and Orange bowls, and had a schedule alliance with Pitt and Penn State? They may not have been as successful as Pitt and Penn State in the seventies, but that doesn't make them a "tweener" as you say. But in the 50's and 60's Pitt was clearly a peg down from Syracuse. So they must have been a "tweener" too.

(09-18-2015 05:03 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 04:47 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  0-3 is 0-3. It sucks

We started 1-3, with a really young team in 2006. Lost first game Pitt,
lost @PSU, lost @OSU. Finished 8-5.

Sounds like you had a schedule front-loaded with good/ranked teams. Then the schedule got easier.

(09-18-2015 12:53 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Their fan base better get used to losing 3-5 games a year. Nothing against Louisville but there simply are better football programs in their conference and in no way are they really above G5 teams.

Get real, Buster! We're way above GoFers, and as soon as the AD learns not to schedule good G5's it'll be all the more glaring!

Besides, as has been noted, the Ville just got way tooooo much money to do a lot of losing.

Bobby P's still unpacking and getting things in order--it wasn't going to be until about his 4th season anyway. Then we'll be competing for the conference--Yessir...

I eat humble pie and sh!t ego salad!

(09-18-2015 08:51 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 08:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 01:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 10:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 09:15 AM)goofus Wrote:  Yes, I should have spoke only for Iowa, who had some extremely hard schedules in the 70's.

Plus I admit it is confusing. Iowa also had games against PSU, Sryacuse, Pitt, Arizona and Utah in the 70's, who are all P5 now, but what were they considered then? G5?

In the 1970s, Arizona was not considered to be a "power" school until they joined the PAC in 1978. Penn State and Pitt were definitely major independents, along with Notre Dame. Syracuse was a tweener school, hard to peg down. Utah was off the map back then.

Ridiculous statement. Syracuse has always been a major independent just like Pitt and Penn State, until they joined the BE in 1991. That is a fact that doesn't change to support a ridiculous argument.

No, in the 1970s, Syracuse was clearly a peg down from Pitt/Penn State, not in the same class. A 'tweener', like many ACC schools were then even though Cuse wasn't in the ACC.

You mean the same Syracuse who had won the national championship about 15 years earlier and was ranked top 12 all time in wins at the time and had played in multiple major bowls like the Gator, Cotton, Sugar and Orange bowls, and had a schedule alliance with Pitt and Penn State? They may not have been as successful as Pitt and Penn State in the seventies, but that doesn't make them a "tweener" as you say. But in the 50's and 60's Pitt was clearly a peg down from Syracuse. So they must have been a "tweener" too.

I meant the Syracuse of the 1970s. The Cuse of the 1950s was a major power, but then again Army was a major power in the 1940s. That status can change over time and for Syracuse it did.

By the 1970s, Syracuse had at least partially fallen from the "power" ranks. I remember 70s college football well, and Cuse was an ACC-type team, on the same level as a North Carolina or a Virginia. Not down in the lesser ranks, but not on the same level as the major-conference teams either.

"Tweener" does capture Syracuse's status in the 70s quite well.

(09-19-2015 04:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 08:51 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 08:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 01:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 10:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  In the 1970s, Arizona was not considered to be a "power" school until they joined the PAC in 1978. Penn State and Pitt were definitely major independents, along with Notre Dame. Syracuse was a tweener school, hard to peg down. Utah was off the map back then.

Ridiculous statement. Syracuse has always been a major independent just like Pitt and Penn State, until they joined the BE in 1991. That is a fact that doesn't change to support a ridiculous argument.

No, in the 1970s, Syracuse was clearly a peg down from Pitt/Penn State, not in the same class. A 'tweener', like many ACC schools were then even though Cuse wasn't in the ACC.

You mean the same Syracuse who had won the national championship about 15 years earlier and was ranked top 12 all time in wins at the time and had played in multiple major bowls like the Gator, Cotton, Sugar and Orange bowls, and had a schedule alliance with Pitt and Penn State? They may not have been as successful as Pitt and Penn State in the seventies, but that doesn't make them a "tweener" as you say. But in the 50's and 60's Pitt was clearly a peg down from Syracuse. So they must have been a "tweener" too.

I meant the Syracuse of the 1970s. The Cuse of the 1950s was a major power, but then again Army was a major power in the 1940s. That status can change over time and for Syracuse it did.

By the 1970s, Syracuse had at least partially fallen from the "power" ranks. I remember 70s college football well, and Cuse was an ACC-type team, on the same level as a North Carolina or a Virginia. Not down in the lesser ranks, but not on the same level as the major-conference teams either.

"Tweener" does capture Syracuse's status in the 70s quite well.

LOL, so you can be a power team one decade and the next decade you're a "tweener" So in the 80's and 90's, Pitt was the "tweener." and Syracuse was the power team.

OK, I see how it works in your mind, maneuvering facts to try and make a point stand. But its only YOUR opinion and a term that you made up, so who cares about facts? I get it. Enjoy your college football Saturday.

Syracuse is a roller coaster, cuse. It's an up and down life.

(09-19-2015 03:38 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 12:53 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Their fan base better get used to losing 3-5 games a year. Nothing against Louisville but there simply are better football programs in their conference and in no way are they really above G5 teams.

Get real, Buster! We're way above GoFers, and as soon as the AD learns not to schedule good G5's it'll be all the more glaring!

Besides, as has been noted, the Ville just got way tooooo much money to do a lot of losing.

Bobby P's still unpacking and getting things in order--it wasn't going to be until about his 4th season anyway. Then we'll be competing for the conference--Yessir...

I eat humble pie and sh!t ego salad!

I'm sorry but that's pretty pathetic for any P5 program. No one should be avoiding teams you have traditionally played against to play against teams like Idaho. I respect the amount of effort Louisville has put in to get where they are now but you should never want your program to forget where they came from.

As an outsideer TBH I find the Louisville vs Memphis/Cincinnati/Uconn/Houston/ type games a whole lot more exciting than you playing teams like Wake Forest, BC, Georgia Tech, or NC State. It just seems out of place to me personally.

I'm sure you will enjoy playing the powers like FSU in conference but no reason to not schedule your traditional rivals.

(09-19-2015 08:28 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 03:38 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 12:53 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Their fan base better get used to losing 3-5 games a year. Nothing against Louisville but there simply are better football programs in their conference and in no way are they really above G5 teams.

Get real, Buster! We're way above GoFers, and as soon as the AD learns not to schedule good G5's it'll be all the more glaring!

Besides, as has been noted, the Ville just got way tooooo much money to do a lot of losing.

Bobby P's still unpacking and getting things in order--it wasn't going to be until about his 4th season anyway. Then we'll be competing for the conference--Yessir...

I eat humble pie and sh!t ego salad!

I'm sorry but that's pretty pathetic for any P5 program. No one should be avoiding teams you have traditionally played against to play against teams like Idaho. I respect the amount of effort Louisville has put in to get where they are now but you should never want your program to forget where they came from.

As an outsideer TBH I find the Louisville vs Memphis/Cincinnati/Uconn/Houston/ type games a whole lot more exciting than you playing teams like Wake Forest, BC, Georgia Tech, or NC State. It just seems out of place to me personally.

I'm sure you will enjoy playing the powers like FSU in conference but no reason to not schedule your traditional rivals.

Houston isn't a traditional rival for Louisville. We were in a conference with them a few times but we were also in a conference with FSU, VT, GT & S Car but they aren't traditional basketball rivals for us. But yes Cincy, Memphis & Kentucky are our traditional rivals. I would like to see 1-2 of them appear on our schedule.

As we develop rivalries with our new conference members hopefully those games will become more exciting for you because they are to us.

3-5 losses in a P5 conference isn't bad, especially in a rebuilding year like this one. Louisville finished 5th in the ACC last year so it's really to early to tell what the medium will be but recruiting has definitely improved.

USC is looking good this year as is UCLA. That should prove to be an exciting game.

(09-19-2015 08:08 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 04:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 08:51 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 08:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 01:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Ridiculous statement. Syracuse has always been a major independent just like Pitt and Penn State, until they joined the BE in 1991. That is a fact that doesn't change to support a ridiculous argument.

No, in the 1970s, Syracuse was clearly a peg down from Pitt/Penn State, not in the same class. A 'tweener', like many ACC schools were then even though Cuse wasn't in the ACC.

You mean the same Syracuse who had won the national championship about 15 years earlier and was ranked top 12 all time in wins at the time and had played in multiple major bowls like the Gator, Cotton, Sugar and Orange bowls, and had a schedule alliance with Pitt and Penn State? They may not have been as successful as Pitt and Penn State in the seventies, but that doesn't make them a "tweener" as you say. But in the 50's and 60's Pitt was clearly a peg down from Syracuse. So they must have been a "tweener" too.

I meant the Syracuse of the 1970s. The Cuse of the 1950s was a major power, but then again Army was a major power in the 1940s. That status can change over time and for Syracuse it did.

By the 1970s, Syracuse had at least partially fallen from the "power" ranks. I remember 70s college football well, and Cuse was an ACC-type team, on the same level as a North Carolina or a Virginia. Not down in the lesser ranks, but not on the same level as the major-conference teams either.

"Tweener" does capture Syracuse's status in the 70s quite well.

LOL, so you can be a power team one decade and the next decade you're a "tweener" So in the 80's and 90's, Pitt was the "tweener." and Syracuse was the power team.

OK, I see how it works in your mind, maneuvering facts to try and make a point stand. But its only YOUR opinion and a term that you made up, so who cares about facts? I get it. Enjoy your college football Saturday.

I explained myself clearly: Status can change over time and for Syracuse it did. By the 1970s, Syracuse had lost its power status, you were a tweener.

Sorry if that upsets you, but that's not my fault. Any attempt to claim Syracuse has an unbroken string of time in the power ranks is an Orange fantasy.

(09-19-2015 08:08 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  LOL, so you can be a power team one decade and the next decade you're a "tweener"

Bingo, now you got it. A program doesn't not suddenly drop in status like switching a light switch ... when it loses status, it erodes over time.

(09-19-2015 08:28 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 03:38 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 12:53 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Their fan base better get used to losing 3-5 games a year. Nothing against Louisville but there simply are better football programs in their conference and in no way are they really above G5 teams.

Get real, Buster! We're way above GoFers, and as soon as the AD learns not to schedule good G5's it'll be all the more glaring!

Besides, as has been noted, the Ville just got way tooooo much money to do a lot of losing.

Bobby P's still unpacking and getting things in order--it wasn't going to be until about his 4th season anyway. Then we'll be competing for the conference--Yessir...

I eat humble pie and sh!t ego salad!

I'm sorry but that's pretty pathetic for any P5 program. No one should be avoiding teams you have traditionally played against to play against teams like Idaho. I respect the amount of effort Louisville has put in to get where they are now but you should never want your program to forget where they came from.

As an outsideer TBH I find the Louisville vs Memphis/Cincinnati/Uconn/Houston/ type games a whole lot more exciting than you playing teams like Wake Forest, BC, Georgia Tech, or NC State. It just seems out of place to me personally.

I'm sure you will enjoy playing the powers like FSU in conference but no reason to not schedule your traditional rivals.

Git yer Sarcaster fixed, Sporto-

Never seen a bigger cry-baby for a team he don't even root for!

(09-19-2015 09:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 08:08 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 04:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 08:51 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 08:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  No, in the 1970s, Syracuse was clearly a peg down from Pitt/Penn State, not in the same class. A 'tweener', like many ACC schools were then even though Cuse wasn't in the ACC.

You mean the same Syracuse who had won the national championship about 15 years earlier and was ranked top 12 all time in wins at the time and had played in multiple major bowls like the Gator, Cotton, Sugar and Orange bowls, and had a schedule alliance with Pitt and Penn State? They may not have been as successful as Pitt and Penn State in the seventies, but that doesn't make them a "tweener" as you say. But in the 50's and 60's Pitt was clearly a peg down from Syracuse. So they must have been a "tweener" too.

I meant the Syracuse of the 1970s. The Cuse of the 1950s was a major power, but then again Army was a major power in the 1940s. That status can change over time and for Syracuse it did.

By the 1970s, Syracuse had at least partially fallen from the "power" ranks. I remember 70s college football well, and Cuse was an ACC-type team, on the same level as a North Carolina or a Virginia. Not down in the lesser ranks, but not on the same level as the major-conference teams either.

"Tweener" does capture Syracuse's status in the 70s quite well.

LOL, so you can be a power team one decade and the next decade you're a "tweener" So in the 80's and 90's, Pitt was the "tweener." and Syracuse was the power team.

OK, I see how it works in your mind, maneuvering facts to try and make a point stand. But its only YOUR opinion and a term that you made up, so who cares about facts? I get it. Enjoy your college football Saturday.

I explained myself clearly: Status can change over time and for Syracuse it did. By the 1970s, Syracuse had lost its power status, you were a tweener.

Sorry if that upsets you, but that's not my fault. Any attempt to claim Syracuse has an unbroken string of time in the power ranks is an Orange fantasy.

How do you define "power school?"

(09-19-2015 08:53 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 08:28 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 03:38 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 12:53 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Their fan base better get used to losing 3-5 games a year. Nothing against Louisville but there simply are better football programs in their conference and in no way are they really above G5 teams.

Get real, Buster! We're way above GoFers, and as soon as the AD learns not to schedule good G5's it'll be all the more glaring!

Besides, as has been noted, the Ville just got way tooooo much money to do a lot of losing.

Bobby P's still unpacking and getting things in order--it wasn't going to be until about his 4th season anyway. Then we'll be competing for the conference--Yessir...

I eat humble pie and sh!t ego salad!

I'm sorry but that's pretty pathetic for any P5 program. No one should be avoiding teams you have traditionally played against to play against teams like Idaho. I respect the amount of effort Louisville has put in to get where they are now but you should never want your program to forget where they came from.

As an outsideer TBH I find the Louisville vs Memphis/Cincinnati/Uconn/Houston/ type games a whole lot more exciting than you playing teams like Wake Forest, BC, Georgia Tech, or NC State. It just seems out of place to me personally.

I'm sure you will enjoy playing the powers like FSU in conference but no reason to not schedule your traditional rivals.

Houston isn't a traditional rival for Louisville. We were in a conference with them a few times but we were also in a conference with FSU, VT, GT & S Car but they aren't traditional basketball rivals for us. But yes Cincy, Memphis & Kentucky are our traditional rivals. I would like to see 1-2 of them appear on our schedule.

As we develop rivalries with our new conference members hopefully those games will become more exciting for you because they are to us.

3-5 losses in a P5 conference isn't bad, especially in a rebuilding year like this one. Louisville finished 5th in the ACC last year so it's really to early to tell what the medium will be but recruiting has definitely improved.

USC is looking good this year as is UCLA. That should prove to be an exciting game.

Disagree. There is no advantage to having Memphis on the schedule. I am embracing our new rivalries. More fun, bigger name teams

(09-19-2015 10:33 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 08:53 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 08:28 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(09-19-2015 03:38 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  

(09-18-2015 12:53 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Their fan base better get used to losing 3-5 games a year. Nothing against Louisville but there simply are better football programs in their conference and in no way are they really above G5 teams.

Get real, Buster! We're way above GoFers, and as soon as the AD learns not to schedule good G5's it'll be all the more glaring!

Besides, as has been noted, the Ville just got way tooooo much money to do a lot of losing.

Bobby P's still unpacking and getting things in order--it wasn't going to be until about his 4th season anyway. Then we'll be competing for the conference--Yessir...

I eat humble pie and sh!t ego salad!

I'm sorry but that's pretty pathetic for any P5 program. No one should be avoiding teams you have traditionally played against to play against teams like Idaho. I respect the amount of effort Louisville has put in to get where they are now but you should never want your program to forget where they came from.

As an outsideer TBH I find the Louisville vs Memphis/Cincinnati/Uconn/Houston/ type games a whole lot more exciting than you playing teams like Wake Forest, BC, Georgia Tech, or NC State. It just seems out of place to me personally.

I'm sure you will enjoy playing the powers like FSU in conference but no reason to not schedule your traditional rivals.

Houston isn't a traditional rival for Louisville. We were in a conference with them a few times but we were also in a conference with FSU, VT, GT & S Car but they aren't traditional basketball rivals for us. But yes Cincy, Memphis & Kentucky are our traditional rivals. I would like to see 1-2 of them appear on our schedule.

As we develop rivalries with our new conference members hopefully those games will become more exciting for you because they are to us.

3-5 losses in a P5 conference isn't bad, especially in a rebuilding year like this one. Louisville finished 5th in the ACC last year so it's really to early to tell what the medium will be but recruiting has definitely improved.

USC is looking good this year as is UCLA. That should prove to be an exciting game.

Disagree. There is no advantage to having Memphis on the schedule. I am embracing our new rivalries. More fun, bigger name teams

I agree with you about Memphis, we gain nothing by playing them. I would like to keep Kentucky on our schedule with Cincy thrown in every so often.

Meanwhile, Indiana may be the worst 3-0 major conference team I've ever seen and if not, they're closer to the top than the bottom.