(08-30-2019 12:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 11:46 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  From the stats, I wonder how Minnesota really even won that game. SDSU out-passed and rushed them, more first downs, less penalty yardage, and SDSU picked up more sacks and tackles for loss. Minnesota punted more.

I watched the game. Like many games it was decided by big plays, not steady statistical dominance.

E.g., Minnesota trailed 21-20 midway through the 4th and SDS had the ball and appeared to be in control, but they fumbled a snap in their own territory and Minnesota cashed in for the winning score.

I called this game to be a possible upset last week. Minnesota do struggle against the Dakota schools.

UConn. 24-21 Wagner This would be a laughter if UConn. lost.

(08-30-2019 04:12 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  UConn. 24-21 Wagner This would be a laughter if UConn. lost.

Yes, UConn, UAB, and Minnesota all dodged big bullets last night.

But ... dodge them they did.

(08-29-2019 09:29 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Cincinnati 24
UCLA 14

Is this really a laughable score. I maybe mistaken, but the line was favoring UCLA by less than a touchdown.

UMass 14
Rutgers 0

(08-30-2019 03:58 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 03:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  I know the "rules" say that any G5 win over any P5 team is fair game, but it's hard for me to call Cincy's win "laughable". They were favored to win, at home. In the ACC pickem 81% of the players picked the Bearcats to win. Frankly, I think it might have been laughable if UCLA had won.

Strange rule imho.

Yep. Boise State likes to play Oregon State from time to time, and the inevitable 38-point blowout would be considered "laughable" here, though even Helen Keller could see the game was gonna be a boat race.

(08-30-2019 05:27 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(08-29-2019 09:29 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Cincinnati 24
UCLA 14

Is this really a laughable score. I maybe mistaken, but the line was favoring UCLA by less than a touchdown.

Actually, it was Cincy that was favored.

UMass 21
Rutgers 7

Nearly end of 1st.

(08-30-2019 07:00 PM)WesternSkillet Wrote:  UMass 21
Rutgers 7

Nearly end of 1st.

Game's at SHI(*) stadium. How appropriate!

(08-30-2019 07:00 PM)WesternSkillet Wrote:  UMass 21
Rutgers 7

Nearly end of 1st.

Rutgers looking better now. Up 38-21 at halftime.

(08-30-2019 04:22 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ACC = one of the weakest conference.

If the P5 narrows down to P4? Tonight's game between Clemson and Georgia Tech is a good example they should be picked apart for their best teams and leave the weakest behind. At least the Big 12 are more competitive except for Kansas.

So your whole manifesto is based on a team that was recruited to, but no longer runs the option playing the defending national champions. Got it.

Wisconsin ..... 28

USF ................ 0

Halftime.


It's not that we are losing to the #19 team, i expected that, it's the margin.

It's time to form a Task Force to immediately begin searching for Charlie Strong's replacement.

I'm just going to say it:
Wisconsin-49
USF-0
Midway through the 4th.

Nobody thought it would be this bad.

Wisconsin looks really, really legit.

Big Ten having a really nice night after that Minnesota scare last night.....

(08-30-2019 10:02 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I'm just going to say it:
Wisconsin-49
USF-0
Midway through the 4th.

Nobody thought it would be this bad.

Wisconsin looks really, really legit.

Maybe, but we aee awful, as we were from October onwards last year, so its hard to tell.

Who looked surprisingly good tonight? Tulsa. They were very competitive against Michigan State despite the score.

(08-30-2019 08:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wisconsin ..... 28

USF ................ 0

Halftime.


It's not that we are losing to the #19 team, i expected that, it's the margin.

It's time to form a Task Force to immediately begin searching for Charlie Strong's replacement.

How good was Terry Bridgewater that he made people think Charlie Strong was a capable HC?

(08-30-2019 10:39 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 08:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wisconsin ..... 28

USF ................ 0

Halftime.


It's not that we are losing to the #19 team, i expected that, it's the margin.

It's time to form a Task Force to immediately begin searching for Charlie Strong's replacement.

How good was Terry Bridgewater that he made people think Charlie Strong was a capable HC?

Strong's record with Bridgewater 30-9
otherwise 40-37(and I'd assume sub .500 vs FBS opposition).
conference- with Bridgewater 17-5
without 24-26

Pretty damn good I'd say.

(08-30-2019 08:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wisconsin ..... 28

USF ................ 0

Halftime.


It's not that we are losing to the #19 team, i expected that, it's the margin.

It's time to form a Task Force to immediately begin searching for Charlie Strong's replacement.

Can USF afford the buyout.

(08-30-2019 10:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 10:39 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(08-30-2019 08:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wisconsin ..... 28

USF ................ 0

Halftime.


It's not that we are losing to the #19 team, i expected that, it's the margin.

It's time to form a Task Force to immediately begin searching for Charlie Strong's replacement.

How good was Terry Bridgewater that he made people think Charlie Strong was a capable HC?

Strong's record with Bridgewater 30-9
otherwise 40-37(and I'd assume sub .500 vs FBS opposition).
conference- with Bridgewater 17-5
without 24-26

Pretty damn good I'd say.

Strong had a BCS eligible team at the time and had recruited well. He had other athletes that were drafted by the NFL that year.

I think after this year USF owes Strong only 5.3 million more....