(06-10-2016 10:45 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 12:31 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 06:35 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-06-2016 10:47 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-06-2016 10:26 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Reading ink out of a textbook isn't as good of an education compared to research opportunities to go with the ink reading.

The B1G is regarded as the top non-Ivy academic conference in the nation for various reasons and one of them is the political power in D.C. and the CIC.

Out of the top 50 schools in the nation for 2016, The B1G has 3 schools and an affiliate member and the ACC has 3 schools and an affiliate.

Facts.

1) Research only matters to any appreciable degree if you're a grad student in *some* STEM fields. The overwhelming majority of students aren't grad students - ~14% are at PSU (system-wide), and many students aren't in STEM fields. I would say that the vast majority of students aren't in research-intensive STEM fields based on my experience, but I don't have hard numbers one way or the other. Research is very close to being irrelevant when it comes to academics, and if you think that academic learning takes place by looking at ink in a book, you were robbed of a chance for an education.

2) There are more than 3 ACC schools ranked in the top 50 by the only ranking system that I've seen that actually tries to rank academics. Excluding ND, off the top of my head, there's Duke, UNC, UVA, BC, WF, Miami.

*Actual* facts.

Research isn't irrelevant, not even to undergrads. It should be very important to STEM undergrads, and more and more non-science undergrads. Research is also a large part of how academic reputations are built in academia, but they aren't the only factor. The issue is that schools are very disparate in how they are construed and in their missions. It is very hard to compare to different institutions, like a Boston College or a Notre Dame vs a UCLA or Texas. Very few schools have top, overall excellent reputations...places like the Ivies, MIT, CalTech, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, etc...that level...a level almost no Power5 schools belong to. Other schools have reputations for excellence in various areas or particular fields, whether it be undergrad education, research, or particular fields within those.

Even focusing on just research rankings, no matter how good an Illinois or Wisconsin may be, no one is going to mistake them for a CalTech or MIT, two schools with much smaller total research $. You have to look at ranking methodology and decide what is important for your particular point of view or purpose. If you don't understand the methodology of a ranking, you don't understand the ranking.

No professor, grad student, or post-doc ever wound up at a school because of an affiliation that didn't start with the word Ivy. No one goes to Nebraska because they play football against Northwestern (or are in the CIC with them). No one goes to Florida State because they play basketball against Duke (or are in the ACCAC with them). No one goes to Tennessee because of their associations with Vanderbilt. No one goes to ASU because of Stanford. Not a single research $ gets shared or transferred because of these affiliations.

1. Research *is* close to (if not entirely) irrelevant to most non-STEM undergrads and even many (if not all) STEM undergrads. For example, it has *zero* impact on the quality of education for virtually all political science, labor relations, history, literature, architecture, business, education, pre-law, art, communications, criminal justice, graphic design, economics, hospitality, social studies, theology, philosophy, <insert language here>, etc. undergrads (and honestly grads). And, it honestly would amaze me if it had any real impact on many of the hard science and other STEM fields - other than it probably looks good on a resume. For instance, what ground-breaking research is an the average undergraduate math major realistically going to do that's going to transform his/her education experience? Even look at stuff like biology. Research might help show an area and/or look good on a resume, but you'd have to be out of your mind if you think that the average student out of the hundreds of thousands of science undergrads has something insightful to add to the world's collective knowledge pool. The average undergraduate student does not discover key information that they otherwise wouldn't learn - even the kids at top tier schools. And unless either the world changes or you can prove otherwise, research is close to irrelevant to undergraduate academics in STEM fields. But that's a battle for another day. Either way, you are wrong about research's importance on the whole.

2. Your point about differing mission statements is right, but it's irrelevant. I am (and very clearly always have been) purely talking about academics. Not having an academic mission statement isn't somehow a magic free pass, like you seem to imply. We are 100% NOT talking about who accomplishes their mission statement better - *only* who educates students better.

3. You're also somewhat wrong about conference affiliation not mattering. It's true that they don't matter in the way that many posters like to believe. However, collegiate athletics is often a school's primary marketing vehicle. Putting games in front of target perspective students is a big deal for many, many schools. In Tennessee's case, it means having yearly touch points w/ high school kids in Nashville. That touch point is made possible by SEC membership and Vanderbilt. However, the impact is probably greater with two similar institutions (Syracuse and BC, UNC and UVA, Duke and Wake, and so on).

1. While true that undergrads gaining research experience is less important for non-research based fields (as you say, more of the non-STEM fields), the value and importance of the ability of undergrads to conduct research in any field, including non-STEM humanities fields, is rising. This idea has been gaining more prominence and recognition in academia, small and large schools alike...and this has been the case for the last decade. If you don't agree, you're not in the mainstream of current thinking in academia or education in general, and definitely oblivious to the trends.

2. I don't know what your point is. I don't know of any college or university that doesn't have an academic mission or mission statement. Research, which is expanding human knowledge of a particular field, is almost always part of academic missions and evaluation of tenure stream faculty, even at universities that aren't large research institutions (places like Lehigh and Villanova). I'm pretty sure your ideas and definitions on how to best educate students doesn't align with the majority in academia, that is for sure.

3. I'm not wrong about conference membership mattering in academia for graduate and research endeavors of any university, and as I said, if you disagree with that, you have no ideal what the hell you are talking. The marketing of sports can impact undergraduate admissions statistics, and the impact of that is debatable as far as the overall reputation of the school. There are some historic exceptions, smaller schools like Notre Dame and Duke would be far less known without their sports programs, but that is more about them having major sports programs with media reach beyond their home region than belonging to any consortium or conference. For the most part, it can hardly be seen as cost effective strategy to boost student recruitment because the money spent on the crapshoot of breaking above the athletic noise pales compared to potential the impact of putting those athletic millions into simple recruiting strategies or financial aid.

1. If it was even close to being as important as you like to make it sound, you should easily be able to answer my questions - yet you can't or inexplicably won't. Instead, you respond by making smug statements that are almost as empty as they are vague. You say that undergraduate non-STEM research is growing in importance. Do you not see how empty and generally worthless that statement is? Going from having a tangible impact on one person out of a million to two people out of a million would be "growing." In fact, it would be growing by a lot - 100% to be exact. But it would still be incredibly insignificant. However going from impacting 1,000,000 to impacting that same 1,000,000 wouldn't be growing at all. The impact would be holding steady. However, it would still be very impactful. See the difference? I am, and always have been, arguing about importance. Your statements, though smug, don't actually refute my point. Instead, you almost agree by saying that research is "less important" at the undergrad level.

2. If you don't understand my point, then you should have read my posts before you replied with yet another vague and rambling post that's mostly irrelevant and jumps to ridiculous conclusions. We're talking about academics - the dissemination of knowledge. Your half-baked ramblings about the creation of knowledge are irrelevant, as is your attempt to give certain universities a free pass based on their mission statement. For the second time, this is NOT a discussion about which schools follow their mission statement the best.

3. Can you read?! I NEVER said ANYTHING about conference membership mattering for graduate research. In fact, I LITERALLY IMPLIED THE EXACT OPPOSITE when I said that it doesn't work the way that most posters think and then went on to claim that it only impacts student recruitment (i.e. the part that you agreed with). And you're wrong, about the school's overal reputation. There was literally a study that determined that schools tend to drift towards their conference's average. I'm on a phone, so I can't link the study, but use your own statements. If conferences have some impact on recruitment - positive or negative - how could they also not have an impact on a school's reputation, given that reputations are based on student recruitment (as well as other factors)? And as for the accounting part, you're hilariously wrong. That's one of the reasons why schools are willing to spend so much in athletics. It's actually often really, really cheap marketing.

Seriously though, please read before you post. You tend to make wild assumptions that aren't even close to being accurate (see your points #2 and #3).

Ah ... the age-old, time-honored tradition about arguing what "academics" actually means, and which schools "do it" the "best", on a conference realignment board.

At the end of the day, I'll take the federal grant money and you can have your reputation "rankings". I know that much.

(06-10-2016 11:36 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ah ... the age-old, time-honored tradition about arguing what "academics" actually means, and which schools "do it" the "best", on a conference realignment board.

At the end of the day, I'll take the federal grant money and you can have your reputation "rankings". I know that much.

The thing is, outside of your brain, there *is* no controversy about whether MIT and Caltech are better schools than Minnesota, Michigan, and Georgia Tech. None whatsoever.

So you can bounce the issue around inside your brain and conclude that you'd rather have those gobs of federal research dollars that come from having 1,500 more faculty if you like, but it doesn't matter anywhere in the real world.

FWIW, I've always heard that MIT and Cal Tech were the two best engineering schools in the US.

(06-10-2016 07:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FWIW, I've always heard that MIT and Cal Tech were the two best engineering schools in the US.

FWIW, Of course they are!

FWIW, here's an interesting 2012 interactive survey of who universities believe their "peers" to be. What was fascinating was how much like high school it is: Lesser schools choose better schools as their peers, but it is not reciprocated.

For example, at the very top, Harvard selected only three schools as peers: Princeton, Yale, and Stanford. Both Yale and Stanford also picked Harvard as a peer (Princeton regarded itself as peerless!).

For the purposes of this discussion, both Michigan and Georgia Tech said that MIT and Caltech were their peers, but neither MIT nor Caltech chose Michigan or Georgia Tech as a peer. That's telling as to where they stand in the pecking order.

MIT chose just 7 schools as peers, all Ivy-level blue chips: Harvard, Carnegie Mellon, Caltech, Cornell, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale. And as if to confirm their elite status, five of those reciprocated, all but Princeton and Harvard, arguably the two top universities in the world.

And this cut across conference affiliation. For example, Minnesota selected 10 schools as peers, five from the B1G: Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio State. All of those reciprocated. But they also chose Cal, UCLA, and Washington from the PAC, and also Florida and Texas. They dissed B1G schools like Iowa, Nebraska, and Michigan State that picked them, LOL.

http://chronicle.com/interactives/peers-network

(06-08-2016 08:59 AM)nole Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 03:34 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 12:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  FSU and Clemson got screwed by the timing of realignment.

I think, with hindsight, they'd bolt.

No they wouldn't.

You say the BigTexas conference, but they'd go there and immediately have ZERO clout (Texas and its ego and all), and their basketball gate would suffer.

FSU and Clemson are NOT giving up home basketball dates with UNC, Duke, Syracuse AND Louisville in exchange for Kansas. Good luck with that.

Nor are they going to give up any part of the ND football rotation. Again, good luck with that.

If FSU had an offer from the Power 2, they would leave the ACC in a heart beat.

Jimbo has been expressing concern privately and FSU's BOT has been publically about the ACC.

FSU is stuck. it is the only reason it is in the ACC.

I disagree, clemson and fsu cake walk to the playoffs every year. No confernce is as full if powder puffs ass the acc. Bobby didnt want the SEC for this reason. Glotified scrimmages to get readu for bowls and have a high rank from running up scores and being undefeated. Fsu buzzsaws the acc the gets waxed by houstons and oregons. Why play competive ball every week?

(06-11-2016 11:50 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 08:59 AM)nole Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 03:34 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 12:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  FSU and Clemson got screwed by the timing of realignment.

I think, with hindsight, they'd bolt.

No they wouldn't.

You say the BigTexas conference, but they'd go there and immediately have ZERO clout (Texas and its ego and all), and their basketball gate would suffer.

FSU and Clemson are NOT giving up home basketball dates with UNC, Duke, Syracuse AND Louisville in exchange for Kansas. Good luck with that.

Nor are they going to give up any part of the ND football rotation. Again, good luck with that.

If FSU had an offer from the Power 2, they would leave the ACC in a heart beat.

Jimbo has been expressing concern privately and FSU's BOT has been publically about the ACC.

FSU is stuck. it is the only reason it is in the ACC.

I disagree, clemson and fsu cake walk to the playoffs every year. No confernce is as full if powder puffs ass the acc. Bobby didnt want the SEC for this reason. Glotified scrimmages to get readu for bowls and have a high rank from running up scores and being undefeated. Fsu buzzsaws the acc the gets waxed by houstons and oregons. Why play competive ball every week?

And the pollsters, definitely the AP, gave UMFL and FSU gifts despite their schedules in the 80's and then the 90's. If the press and coaches turned off independents in the 80's (like they maybe should have...even you, Penn State), one has to wonder what conferences would look like today.

Revisionist history! Anyone who claims that FSU and Miami were not the two best programs in the 90's needs to go straight to drug rehab... also, while I agree that Oregon "buzz-sawed" FSU, that's not how I would describe the Houston loss (and, to be honest, I'm not sure that Ohio State, Michigan State, Stanford, Oklahoma, Florida, LSU, or any team not named Alabama or Clemson would've beaten last year's very underrated Houston squad in a bowl, where they get a month to prepare for you on a neutral site).

(06-12-2016 07:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Revisionist history! Anyone who claims that FSU and Miami were not the two best programs in the 90's needs to go straight to drug rehab...

Well, Nebraska won 3 national titles in the 90s. That's as many as Miami and FSU won combined that decade. And after 1994 Miami fell off a cliff until 2000.

I didn't need to be on drugs to remember that, LOL.

Beyond that, Houston *did* pound FSU pretty decisively, but no, Ohio State would have crushed Houston, and teams like LSU, MSU, and Stanford would have beaten Houston pretty handily.

(06-13-2016 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 07:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Revisionist history! Anyone who claims that FSU and Miami were not the two best programs in the 90's needs to go straight to drug rehab...

Well, Nebraska won 3 national titles in the 90s. That's as many as Miami and FSU won combined that decade. And after 1994 Miami fell off a cliff until 2000.

I didn't need to be on drugs to remember that, LOL.

Beyond that, Houston *did* pound FSU pretty decisively, but no, Ohio State would have crushed Houston, and teams like LSU, MSU, and Stanford would have beaten Houston pretty handily.

I give you Ohio State, Stanford and Michigan State could have beaten Houston...LSU...Uh no....no QB Play and they were crushed at home against Arkansas...Houston better than Arkansas...but again you have this LSU bias...you use to think Mettenberger was better than Bortles & Bridgewater...lol...

(06-13-2016 08:25 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 07:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Revisionist history! Anyone who claims that FSU and Miami were not the two best programs in the 90's needs to go straight to drug rehab...

Well, Nebraska won 3 national titles in the 90s. That's as many as Miami and FSU won combined that decade. And after 1994 Miami fell off a cliff until 2000.

I didn't need to be on drugs to remember that, LOL.

Beyond that, Houston *did* pound FSU pretty decisively, but no, Ohio State would have crushed Houston, and teams like LSU, MSU, and Stanford would have beaten Houston pretty handily.

I give you Ohio State, Stanford and Michigan State could have beaten Houston...LSU...Uh no....no QB Play and they were crushed at home against Arkansas... Houston better than Arkansas.

Could have? They would have all beaten Houston like a drum.

Yes, LSU lost to Arkansas, a team that crushed K-State in their bowl game. The other two teams LSU lost to were Ole Miss and Alabama. They went 3-0 in BCS bowl games.

Houston lost to UConn, and everyone was better than UConn. Houston also was effectively beaten at home by Memphis, they needed amazing 4th quarter luck and Memphis choking to win that game. Auburn, a 6-6 SEC team, crushed Memphis like a bug in a bowl game.

Houston beat an unmotivated FSU team that wasn't all that good to begin with. After two straight years of undefeated regular seasons and trips to the BCS title game and CFP playoffs, getting stuck playing Houston in the Peach was a huge downer. Few FSU fans bothered to make the 4-hour drive to Atlanta. And FSU was a good matchup for Houston because FSU was a speed/finesse team and Houston had speed.

But LSU had plenty of speed on defense to run with the Houston offense, and on offense would have pounded Houston to death between the tackles with Hill. Houston would have had no answer for that. 38-21 probably an accurate final score, LSU with about 300 rushing yards.

(06-13-2016 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:25 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 07:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Revisionist history! Anyone who claims that FSU and Miami were not the two best programs in the 90's needs to go straight to drug rehab...

Well, Nebraska won 3 national titles in the 90s. That's as many as Miami and FSU won combined that decade. And after 1994 Miami fell off a cliff until 2000.

I didn't need to be on drugs to remember that, LOL.

Beyond that, Houston *did* pound FSU pretty decisively, but no, Ohio State would have crushed Houston, and teams like LSU, MSU, and Stanford would have beaten Houston pretty handily.

I give you Ohio State, Stanford and Michigan State could have beaten Houston...LSU...Uh no....no QB Play and they were crushed at home against Arkansas... Houston better than Arkansas...but again you have this LSU bias...you use to think Mettenberger was better than Bortles & Bridgewater...lol...

Could have? They would have all beaten Houston like a drum.

Yes, LSU lost to Arkansas, a team that crushed K-State in their bowl game. The other two teams LSU lost to were Ole Miss and Alabama. They went 3-0 in BCS bowl games.

Houston lost to UConn, and everyone was better than UConn. Houston also was effectively beaten at home by Memphis, they needed amazing 4th quarter luck and Memphis choking to win that game. Auburn, a 6-6 SEC team, crushed Memphis like a bug in a bowl game.

Houston beat an unmotivated FSU team that wasn't all that good to begin with. After two straight years of undefeated regular seasons and trips to the BCS title game and CFP playoffs, getting stuck playing Houston in the Peach was a huge downer. Few FSU fans bothered to make the 4-hour drive to Atlanta. And FSU was a good matchup for Houston because FSU was a speed/finesse team and Houston had speed.

But LSU had plenty of speed on defense to run with the Houston offense, and on offense would have pounded Houston to death between the tackles with Hill. Houston would have had no answer for that. 38-21 probably an accurate final score, LSU with about 300 rushing yards.

1. We played them both and we warned FSU fans about them...they were motivated...also, Memphis beat Ole Miss by double digits...Houston had complete control in the Peach Bowl over FSU

2. Greg Ward Jr. played only the 1st and part of the 2nd Quarter against Memphis and wasn't playing when they lost to UConn...

(06-13-2016 09:56 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:25 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 07:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Revisionist history! Anyone who claims that FSU and Miami were not the two best programs in the 90's needs to go straight to drug rehab...

Well, Nebraska won 3 national titles in the 90s. That's as many as Miami and FSU won combined that decade. And after 1994 Miami fell off a cliff until 2000.

I didn't need to be on drugs to remember that, LOL.

Beyond that, Houston *did* pound FSU pretty decisively, but no, Ohio State would have crushed Houston, and teams like LSU, MSU, and Stanford would have beaten Houston pretty handily.

I give you Ohio State, Stanford and Michigan State could have beaten Houston...LSU...Uh no....no QB Play and they were crushed at home against Arkansas... Houston better than Arkansas...but again you have this LSU bias...you use to think Mettenberger was better than Bortles & Bridgewater...lol...

Could have? They would have all beaten Houston like a drum.

Yes, LSU lost to Arkansas, a team that crushed K-State in their bowl game. The other two teams LSU lost to were Ole Miss and Alabama. They went 3-0 in BCS bowl games.

Houston lost to UConn, and everyone was better than UConn. Houston also was effectively beaten at home by Memphis, they needed amazing 4th quarter luck and Memphis choking to win that game. Auburn, a 6-6 SEC team, crushed Memphis like a bug in a bowl game.

Houston beat an unmotivated FSU team that wasn't all that good to begin with. After two straight years of undefeated regular seasons and trips to the BCS title game and CFP playoffs, getting stuck playing Houston in the Peach was a huge downer. Few FSU fans bothered to make the 4-hour drive to Atlanta. And FSU was a good matchup for Houston because FSU was a speed/finesse team and Houston had speed.

But LSU had plenty of speed on defense to run with the Houston offense, and on offense would have pounded Houston to death between the tackles with Hill. Houston would have had no answer for that. 38-21 probably an accurate final score, LSU with about 300 rushing yards.

1. We played them both and we warned FSU fans about them...they were motivated...also, Memphis beat Ole Miss by double digits...Houston had complete control in the Peach Bowl over FSU

2. Greg Ward Jr. played only the 1st and part of the 2nd Quarter against Memphis and wasn't playing when they lost to UConn...

I agree that Houston completely outplayed FSU in the Peach Bowl. What I said was the FSU was completely unmotivated for that game. The team, the fans, the entire FSU community couldn't have cared less. It was a relegation game to them. In contrast, for Houston that game was their Super Bowl. That's typically always the way it is when the P5 team plays the G5 team in a BCS game - the big name P5 team is "down" from being stuck with the G5 team, the G5 team is sky-high motivated to prove themselves vs the P5 team.

Also, I'm not sure what you would have warned FSU about. Louisville barely lost to Houston, the game could have gone either way, you guys lost it with a couple of dumb turnovers and penalties. In contrast, FSU beat Louisville much more handily and decisively.

As for Ward vs Memphis, the reason Ward missed the last 32 minutes of the game (he was knocked out with 1:50 to go in the half) was because Memphis had his number. With nearly half the game gone, Memphis was ahead 20-0, had held Ward to 60 yards passing, and had sacked him five times. It was on the 5th sack that he was injured. He had been sacked as may times as he'd completed a pass.

Remember, Houston didn't just barely beat Memphis, they barely scraped by Louisville and Cincy as well. They were kind of like UCF in 2013, they were pretty lucky in close games and against a soft schedule.

Even with the FSU game, they played the 90th ranked schedule in the country.

(06-12-2016 07:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Revisionist history! Anyone who claims that FSU and Miami were not the two best programs in the 90's needs to go straight to drug rehab... also, while I agree that Oregon "buzz-sawed" FSU, that's not how I would describe the Houston loss (and, to be honest, I'm not sure that Ohio State, Michigan State, Stanford, Oklahoma, Florida, LSU, or any team not named Alabama or Clemson would've beaten last year's very underrated Houston squad in a bowl, where they get a month to prepare for you on a neutral site).

Let me know which rehab center you want your treatment at since Nebraska was the top program in the nation in the 90's.

(06-14-2016 07:42 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 07:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Revisionist history! Anyone who claims that FSU and Miami were not the two best programs in the 90's needs to go straight to drug rehab... also, while I agree that Oregon "buzz-sawed" FSU, that's not how I would describe the Houston loss (and, to be honest, I'm not sure that Ohio State, Michigan State, Stanford, Oklahoma, Florida, LSU, or any team not named Alabama or Clemson would've beaten last year's very underrated Houston squad in a bowl, where they get a month to prepare for you on a neutral site).

Let me know which rehab center you want your treatment at since Nebraska was the top program in the nation in the 90's.

Nebraska, Miami and FSU were the Top 3 programs during the 1990's followed by Bama and Florida...

(06-14-2016 07:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 09:56 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:25 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, Nebraska won 3 national titles in the 90s. That's as many as Miami and FSU won combined that decade. And after 1994 Miami fell off a cliff until 2000.

I didn't need to be on drugs to remember that, LOL.

Beyond that, Houston *did* pound FSU pretty decisively, but no, Ohio State would have crushed Houston, and teams like LSU, MSU, and Stanford would have beaten Houston pretty handily.

I give you Ohio State, Stanford and Michigan State could have beaten Houston...LSU...Uh no....no QB Play and they were crushed at home against Arkansas... Houston better than Arkansas...but again you have this LSU bias...you use to think Mettenberger was better than Bortles & Bridgewater...lol...

Could have? They would have all beaten Houston like a drum.

Yes, LSU lost to Arkansas, a team that crushed K-State in their bowl game. The other two teams LSU lost to were Ole Miss and Alabama. They went 3-0 in BCS bowl games.

Houston lost to UConn, and everyone was better than UConn. Houston also was effectively beaten at home by Memphis, they needed amazing 4th quarter luck and Memphis choking to win that game. Auburn, a 6-6 SEC team, crushed Memphis like a bug in a bowl game.

Houston beat an unmotivated FSU team that wasn't all that good to begin with. After two straight years of undefeated regular seasons and trips to the BCS title game and CFP playoffs, getting stuck playing Houston in the Peach was a huge downer. Few FSU fans bothered to make the 4-hour drive to Atlanta. And FSU was a good matchup for Houston because FSU was a speed/finesse team and Houston had speed.

But LSU had plenty of speed on defense to run with the Houston offense, and on offense would have pounded Houston to death between the tackles with Hill. Houston would have had no answer for that. 38-21 probably an accurate final score, LSU with about 300 rushing yards.

1. We played them both and we warned FSU fans about them...they were motivated...also, Memphis beat Ole Miss by double digits...Houston had complete control in the Peach Bowl over FSU

2. Greg Ward Jr. played only the 1st and part of the 2nd Quarter against Memphis and wasn't playing when they lost to UConn...

I agree that Houston completely outplayed FSU in the Peach Bowl. What I said was the FSU was completely unmotivated for that game. The team, the fans, the entire FSU community couldn't have cared less. It was a relegation game to them. In contrast, for Houston that game was their Super Bowl. That's typically always the way it is when the P5 team plays the G5 team in a BCS game - the big name P5 team is "down" from being stuck with the G5 team, the G5 team is sky-high motivated to prove themselves vs the P5 team.

Also, I'm not sure what you would have warned FSU about. Louisville barely lost to Houston, the game could have gone either way, you guys lost it with a couple of dumb turnovers and penalties. In contrast, FSU beat Louisville much more handily and decisively.

As for Ward vs Memphis, the reason Ward missed the last 32 minutes of the game (he was knocked out with 1:50 to go in the half) was because Memphis had his number. With nearly half the game gone, Memphis was ahead 20-0, had held Ward to 60 yards passing, and had sacked him five times. It was on the 5th sack that he was injured. He had been sacked as may times as he'd completed a pass.

Remember, Houston didn't just barely beat Memphis, they barely scraped by Louisville and Cincy as well. They were kind of like UCF in 2013, they were pretty lucky in close games and against a soft schedule.

Even with the FSU game, they played the 90th ranked schedule in the country.

You realize we lead FSU in Tallahassee at halftime...our issue was young team that ran out of gas in the Florida Heat....as for UCF, they had a lot of talent...only a blown lead to South Carolina they would have went unbeaten...hell they beat a Louisville team that in retrospect was one of the most talented in the country that year...proof 15 out of 22 Louisville starters in that game are now in the National Football League with most as starters for their NFL Teams.

Was at the Houston-Louisville game and the Louisville-Clemson game....didn't see much difference between Clemson and Houston...both could have gone either way.

(06-13-2016 09:56 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:25 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 07:01 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Revisionist history! Anyone who claims that FSU and Miami were not the two best programs in the 90's needs to go straight to drug rehab...

Well, Nebraska won 3 national titles in the 90s. That's as many as Miami and FSU won combined that decade. And after 1994 Miami fell off a cliff until 2000.

I didn't need to be on drugs to remember that, LOL.

Beyond that, Houston *did* pound FSU pretty decisively, but no, Ohio State would have crushed Houston, and teams like LSU, MSU, and Stanford would have beaten Houston pretty handily.

I give you Ohio State, Stanford and Michigan State could have beaten Houston...LSU...Uh no....no QB Play and they were crushed at home against Arkansas... Houston better than Arkansas...but again you have this LSU bias...you use to think Mettenberger was better than Bortles & Bridgewater...lol...

Could have? They would have all beaten Houston like a drum.

Yes, LSU lost to Arkansas, a team that crushed K-State in their bowl game. The other two teams LSU lost to were Ole Miss and Alabama. They went 3-0 in BCS bowl games.

Houston lost to UConn, and everyone was better than UConn. Houston also was effectively beaten at home by Memphis, they needed amazing 4th quarter luck and Memphis choking to win that game. Auburn, a 6-6 SEC team, crushed Memphis like a bug in a bowl game.

Houston beat an unmotivated FSU team that wasn't all that good to begin with. After two straight years of undefeated regular seasons and trips to the BCS title game and CFP playoffs, getting stuck playing Houston in the Peach was a huge downer. Few FSU fans bothered to make the 4-hour drive to Atlanta. And FSU was a good matchup for Houston because FSU was a speed/finesse team and Houston had speed.

But LSU had plenty of speed on defense to run with the Houston offense, and on offense would have pounded Houston to death between the tackles with Hill. Houston would have had no answer for that. 38-21 probably an accurate final score, LSU with about 300 rushing yards.

1. We played them both and we warned FSU fans about them...they were motivated...also, Memphis beat Ole Miss by double digits...Houston had complete control in the Peach Bowl over FSU

2. Greg Ward Jr. played only the 1st and part of the 2nd Quarter against Memphis and wasn't playing when they lost to UConn...

And,........Memphis was handled by a pedestrian Auburn team. Hmm! You have a weak argument and as usual it represents more Schadenfreude than fact where the SEC is concerned. Quo is correct about what P5 schools feel about with regards to a G5 team in a BCS bowl. Also neither of your arguments take into account the fact that in sports sometimes key players just have lousy days.

Now as far as talking about what schools were great in the 90's, it was a different world compared to today. ESPN had not fully gotten involved into pimping programs (which does have an affect upon recruits), the T.V. money was not so heavily weighted in favor of a some conferences so the economic platform, while unequal, did not have the gulf of separation it has today, and the only element that has not changed was coaching. Star coaches still had a major impact. Miami had a string of very solid coaches, Nebraska still had Osborne in the 90's, and Bowden was in the middle of his challenge with Paterno. Not only were they solid coaches but they too had a lot of exposure.

Exposure is what all of Harbaugh's comments have been about. He makes himself the focus of news, especially on slow news days and he generates interest. That will work to get his boost in recruiting but winning will be necessary to keep that steam. Louisville has had enough success beginning with Schnellenberger and twice now with Petrino that they will hold some steam until they get a clunker for head coach. So keeping a coach that is competent is the path for Louisville's future. That means keeping up with the pay.

The difference today between programs is that the SEC and Big 10 have so much more money to pump into the programs. Dabo has that going on at Clemson. But if you aren't a SEC or Big 10 coach you now have to do so much more with less, and if the major outlay at schools not in the Big 10 and SEC is not for coaches salaries then you won't keep the great coaches you get.

Look at Memphis. They had a great year. Now they rebuild. It's hard to push through to the next level when you are a job that coaches use as a step to the next level. Tulane, Southern Mississippi, many of the MAC schools, and Boise have all suffered similar fates.

(06-14-2016 09:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 09:56 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:25 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, Nebraska won 3 national titles in the 90s. That's as many as Miami and FSU won combined that decade. And after 1994 Miami fell off a cliff until 2000.

I didn't need to be on drugs to remember that, LOL.

Beyond that, Houston *did* pound FSU pretty decisively, but no, Ohio State would have crushed Houston, and teams like LSU, MSU, and Stanford would have beaten Houston pretty handily.

I give you Ohio State, Stanford and Michigan State could have beaten Houston...LSU...Uh no....no QB Play and they were crushed at home against Arkansas... Houston better than Arkansas...but again you have this LSU bias...you use to think Mettenberger was better than Bortles & Bridgewater...lol...

Could have? They would have all beaten Houston like a drum.

Yes, LSU lost to Arkansas, a team that crushed K-State in their bowl game. The other two teams LSU lost to were Ole Miss and Alabama. They went 3-0 in BCS bowl games.

Houston lost to UConn, and everyone was better than UConn. Houston also was effectively beaten at home by Memphis, they needed amazing 4th quarter luck and Memphis choking to win that game. Auburn, a 6-6 SEC team, crushed Memphis like a bug in a bowl game.

Houston beat an unmotivated FSU team that wasn't all that good to begin with. After two straight years of undefeated regular seasons and trips to the BCS title game and CFP playoffs, getting stuck playing Houston in the Peach was a huge downer. Few FSU fans bothered to make the 4-hour drive to Atlanta. And FSU was a good matchup for Houston because FSU was a speed/finesse team and Houston had speed.

But LSU had plenty of speed on defense to run with the Houston offense, and on offense would have pounded Houston to death between the tackles with Hill. Houston would have had no answer for that. 38-21 probably an accurate final score, LSU with about 300 rushing yards.

1. We played them both and we warned FSU fans about them...they were motivated...also, Memphis beat Ole Miss by double digits...Houston had complete control in the Peach Bowl over FSU

2. Greg Ward Jr. played only the 1st and part of the 2nd Quarter against Memphis and wasn't playing when they lost to UConn...

And,........Memphis was handled by a pedestrian Auburn team. Hmm! You have a weak argument and as usual it represents more Schadenfreude than fact where the SEC is concerned.

You're right....they were handled by a average Auburn-(as was Louisville) when their HC left for Virginia Tech prior to the Bowl Game....FYI...I'm not "Anti SEC"...

(06-14-2016 09:09 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 09:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 09:56 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 08:25 AM)Maize Wrote:  I give you Ohio State, Stanford and Michigan State could have beaten Houston...LSU...Uh no....no QB Play and they were crushed at home against Arkansas... Houston better than Arkansas...but again you have this LSU bias...you use to think Mettenberger was better than Bortles & Bridgewater...lol...

Could have? They would have all beaten Houston like a drum.

Yes, LSU lost to Arkansas, a team that crushed K-State in their bowl game. The other two teams LSU lost to were Ole Miss and Alabama. They went 3-0 in BCS bowl games.

Houston lost to UConn, and everyone was better than UConn. Houston also was effectively beaten at home by Memphis, they needed amazing 4th quarter luck and Memphis choking to win that game. Auburn, a 6-6 SEC team, crushed Memphis like a bug in a bowl game.

Houston beat an unmotivated FSU team that wasn't all that good to begin with. After two straight years of undefeated regular seasons and trips to the BCS title game and CFP playoffs, getting stuck playing Houston in the Peach was a huge downer. Few FSU fans bothered to make the 4-hour drive to Atlanta. And FSU was a good matchup for Houston because FSU was a speed/finesse team and Houston had speed.

But LSU had plenty of speed on defense to run with the Houston offense, and on offense would have pounded Houston to death between the tackles with Hill. Houston would have had no answer for that. 38-21 probably an accurate final score, LSU with about 300 rushing yards.

1. We played them both and we warned FSU fans about them...they were motivated...also, Memphis beat Ole Miss by double digits...Houston had complete control in the Peach Bowl over FSU

2. Greg Ward Jr. played only the 1st and part of the 2nd Quarter against Memphis and wasn't playing when they lost to UConn...

And,........Memphis was handled by a pedestrian Auburn team. Hmm! You have a weak argument and as usual it represents more Schadenfreude than fact where the SEC is concerned.

You're right....they were handled by a average Auburn-(as was Louisville) when their HC left for Virginia Tech prior to the Bowl Game....

Right, and Auburn handled them despite losing their DC and defensive line coach before that bowl game as well.

As for UofL vs FSU, you're not going to be able to spin a 41-21 loss as a "close game", not anywhere like UofL vs Houston.