WOW, Wisconsin driving it down the field 80 yards for a touchdown. WITHOUT JONATHAN TAYLOR!!!

On Wisconsin!!!

Congratulations, Michigan! It's the little things like being able to score in a football game, lol.

Can't wait for November 30th when Daddy comes to visit you.

Ohio State defense better get your heads out of your a**.

Tonight starts another weekend of play. I'm looking at an upset happening.

Rutgers May be worse than last year

(09-29-2019 09:26 AM)General Mike Wrote:  Rutgers May be worse than last year

Ash lost the locker room but they can't fire him because they don't have the money. They are stuck with a coach they have no confidence in. It won't get better for a couple years assuming they can get rid of him and any replacement is no guaranty of improvement, especially immediate wins.

(09-29-2019 10:21 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 09:26 AM)General Mike Wrote:  Rutgers May be worse than last year

Ash lost the locker room but they can't fire him because they don't have the money. They are stuck with a coach they have no confidence in. It won't get better for a couple years assuming they can get rid of him and any replacement is no guaranty of improvement, especially immediate wins.

And just like that you look like a stupid idiot because Ash just got fired.

Haha. You reverse jinxed it!

(09-29-2019 12:52 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 10:21 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 09:26 AM)General Mike Wrote:  Rutgers May be worse than last year

Ash lost the locker room but they can't fire him because they don't have the money. They are stuck with a coach they have no confidence in. It won't get better for a couple years assuming they can get rid of him and any replacement is no guaranty of improvement, especially immediate wins.

And just like that you look like a stupid idiot because Ash just got fired.

We had to fire him. It came down to what move was going to cost less; fire the coach and still owe him a ton of money we don’t have, or keep the coach and watch the football program continue to bleed revenue. RU season ticket holders went from 40k to 15k under Ash. Last week’s home game vs BC didn’t have many more than those 15k fans in the stadium. RU was loosing $ on parking and concessions. By firing Ash now, we can jump start the search for the next coach, because RU is now free to conduct an open search.

(09-29-2019 12:52 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 10:21 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 09:26 AM)General Mike Wrote:  Rutgers May be worse than last year

Ash lost the locker room but they can't fire him because they don't have the money. They are stuck with a coach they have no confidence in. It won't get better for a couple years assuming they can get rid of him and any replacement is no guaranty of improvement, especially immediate wins.

And just like that you look like a stupid idiot because Ash just got fired.

I don't mind!

I really can't see why the voters hate Minnesota so much?

Their schedule isn't much worse than Clemson and Georgia and they get absolutely no love. Plus, Georgia has a bad loss, not Wisconsin bad, but still bad.

Please don't try and tell me rankings don't matter right now, have you seen ESPIN talking about LSU having two top ten wins? Is Texas really a top ten win? Did you see them against Kansas last week?

These voters are ridiculous! It matters, it matters and it matters!

I know while I'm saying this that Minnesota could go on to lose 4 games. That's not the point, the point is what have you done until now, not the future.

I promise you, if Mississippi State, Ole Miss, South Carolina etc... had Minnesota's record and sos with no losses, they'd be top 10.

No disrespect to LSU, I think they are worthy. I just have a problem with how ratings are played by the voters. If Minnesota was higher like they should be, it would help Penn State more if they beat them.

Done venting! If anybody is out there, anybody, let me know your thoughts.

Minnesota looked really bad to start with some luck to win the early games and I think that slowed them. The impression I had was they should have lost to some bad teams early and think voters had some of the same ones. Now they are playing much better and still have the perfect record, but it's taking awhile to catch up. They will though if they keep winning. I'll grant some other teams would have been higher, but don't think it's a huge deal. They'll either win enough to move up or go down soon enough regardless.

(10-22-2019 11:20 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Minnesota looked really bad to start with some luck to win the early games and I think that slowed them. The impression I had was they should have lost to some bad teams early and think voters had some of the same ones. Now they are playing much better and still have the perfect record, but it's taking awhile to catch up. They will though if they keep winning. I'll grant some other teams would have been higher, but don't think it's a huge deal. They'll either win enough to move up or go down soon enough regardless.

Yes, good points, ohio1317.

I'm not a fan of Minnesota, but felt there was a little disrespect towards them. Your points make sense to how voters were looking at them. I think they will lose to both Iowa and Wisconsin, but who knows? After seeing what Illinois did last week anything is possible.

(10-23-2019 07:15 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:20 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Minnesota looked really bad to start with some luck to win the early games and I think that slowed them. The impression I had was they should have lost to some bad teams early and think voters had some of the same ones. Now they are playing much better and still have the perfect record, but it's taking awhile to catch up. They will though if they keep winning. I'll grant some other teams would have been higher, but don't think it's a huge deal. They'll either win enough to move up or go down soon enough regardless.

Yes, good points, ohio1317.

I'm not a fan of Minnesota, but felt there was a little disrespect towards them. Your points make sense to how voters were looking at them. I think they will lose to both Iowa and Wisconsin, but who knows? After seeing what Illinois did last week anything is possible.

Minnesota also doesn't have the history that OSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn State have. In the modern era they have always been a middle of the road big ten team. So they don't get the benefit of the doubt from the voters.

(10-23-2019 10:07 AM)utpotts Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 07:15 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:20 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Minnesota looked really bad to start with some luck to win the early games and I think that slowed them. The impression I had was they should have lost to some bad teams early and think voters had some of the same ones. Now they are playing much better and still have the perfect record, but it's taking awhile to catch up. They will though if they keep winning. I'll grant some other teams would have been higher, but don't think it's a huge deal. They'll either win enough to move up or go down soon enough regardless.

Yes, good points, ohio1317.

I'm not a fan of Minnesota, but felt there was a little disrespect towards them. Your points make sense to how voters were looking at them. I think they will lose to both Iowa and Wisconsin, but who knows? After seeing what Illinois did last week anything is possible.

Minnesota also doesn't have the history that OSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn State have. In the modern era they have always been a middle of the road big ten team. So they don't get the benefit of the doubt from the voters.

What you're saying is very much true. I also think voters are also thinking, well they'll get beat by Iowa, Wisconsin and Penn State, what's the point of moving them up high. I don't think this is fair to Minnesota, but it is what it is.

(10-23-2019 01:16 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 10:07 AM)utpotts Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 07:15 AM)cubucks Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:20 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Minnesota looked really bad to start with some luck to win the early games and I think that slowed them. The impression I had was they should have lost to some bad teams early and think voters had some of the same ones. Now they are playing much better and still have the perfect record, but it's taking awhile to catch up. They will though if they keep winning. I'll grant some other teams would have been higher, but don't think it's a huge deal. They'll either win enough to move up or go down soon enough regardless.

Yes, good points, ohio1317.

I'm not a fan of Minnesota, but felt there was a little disrespect towards them. Your points make sense to how voters were looking at them. I think they will lose to both Iowa and Wisconsin, but who knows? After seeing what Illinois did last week anything is possible.

Minnesota also doesn't have the history that OSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn State have. In the modern era they have always been a middle of the road big ten team. So they don't get the benefit of the doubt from the voters.

What you're saying is very much true. I also think voters are also thinking, well they'll get beat by Iowa, Wisconsin and Penn State, what's the point of moving them up high. I don't think this is fair to Minnesota, but it is what it is.

I think if Minnesota would have dominated their first three games and not needed 4th quarter comebacks against mediocre teams they would probably be higher in the rankings. Can they win the west and probably play OSU for a Big Ten title, with out a doubt they can.

Thanks to their loss to Illinois, you can now safely scratch off Wisconsin from any list of hopefuls to the CFP. Minnesota faces a huge test against Penn State. Does the Big 10 require an undefeated Western Division champs or will the match-up between Ohio State and Penn State (and maybe the Ohio State-Michigan game, depending on how strong Michigan is towards the end) be a sufficient criterion for inclusion?

(11-01-2019 01:49 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Thanks to their loss to Illinois, you can now safely scratch off Wisconsin from any list of hopefuls to the CFP. Minnesota faces a huge test against Penn State. Does the Big 10 require an undefeated Western Division champs or will the match-up between Ohio State and Penn State (and maybe the Ohio State-Michigan game, depending on how strong Michigan is towards the end) be a sufficient criterion for inclusion?

Body of work will be more than sufficient Regardless of what happens in the west. The committee looks at this and not the stupid FPI rankings that ESPN uses, at least I hope they don't.

(10-22-2019 11:20 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Minnesota looked really bad to start with some luck to win the early games and I think that slowed them. The impression I had was they should have lost to some bad teams early and think voters had some of the same ones. Now they are playing much better and still have the perfect record, but it's taking awhile to catch up. They will though if they keep winning. I'll grant some other teams would have been higher, but don't think it's a huge deal. They'll either win enough to move up or go down soon enough regardless.

They remind me a little of Rutgers' 2006 team that started 9-0. Played some tough games early (5 point win vs UNC, 2 point win vs USF), struggled against Ohio, but also had some big shutout wins against Illinois and Navy