-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
College Football 2015 Week Two Thread: OSU KOs VPI, forfeits bid to repeat
- Thread starter mre
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I just mean that those schools might not add as much value down the road as the BTN won't be able toLive Sports is the only reason cable TV exists.
That and UMD and Rutgers aren't Dum Dum Us like alot of the other schools mentioned for realignment.
Adding Maryland and Rutgers makes sense under the new business model, but it doesn't make nearly as much if you're selling a la carte subscriptions.
BertramCooper
Banned
It's not like this is going to be a problem unique to the B1G.I just mean that those schools might not add as much value down the road as the BTN won't be able toextortdemand as much from cable providers once alternatives to cable subs become more prevalent.
Adding Maryland and Rutgers makes sense under the new business model, but it doesn't make nearly as much if you're selling a la carte subscriptions.
MOV Game (Tiebreaker ONLY)
Jacksonville State v. Auburn by 49
Thursday
LA Tech v. WKU (-3.5) COVER
Friday
Utah State v. Utah (-13.5) NO COVER
Saturday
Houston v. Louisville (-12.5) NO COVER
Oregon State v. Michigan (-15.5) NO COVER
Notre Dame (-19.5) v. Virginia COVER
Iowa (-7.5) v. Iowa State NO COVER
Oklahoma (-7.5) v. Tennessee COVER
Oregon (-3.5) v. Michigan State NO COVER
LSU (-9.5) v. MSU NO COVER
UCF v. Stanford (-14.5) NO COVER
Jacksonville State v. Auburn by 49
Thursday
LA Tech v. WKU (-3.5) COVER
Friday
Utah State v. Utah (-13.5) NO COVER
Saturday
Houston v. Louisville (-12.5) NO COVER
Oregon State v. Michigan (-15.5) NO COVER
Notre Dame (-19.5) v. Virginia COVER
Iowa (-7.5) v. Iowa State NO COVER
Oklahoma (-7.5) v. Tennessee COVER
Oregon (-3.5) v. Michigan State NO COVER
LSU (-9.5) v. MSU NO COVER
UCF v. Stanford (-14.5) NO COVER
To add to the list of things that Texas AD Patterson is doing that ticks people off, apparently they'll be charging Tech for tickets for our band this year. Charging for band seating isn't all that uncommon in college football, to be sure, but apparently 1. none of the original Big 12 schools from Texas (Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, A&M) have ever charged each other for band seating before, and 2. the actual charge per ticket ($100) is higher than any price Tech has ever paid any school per seat. Apparently something similar has gone down with Rice that ticked them off and they're not bringing their band to Austin at all this weekend.
Admittedly, this is probably one of those stories that's low level enough that we never even hear about it if not for all the other crap Patterson has been doing lately.
Admittedly, this is probably one of those stories that's low level enough that we never even hear about it if not for all the other crap Patterson has been doing lately.
I know. I just wonder if they might have been a bit overaggressive in expansion compared to the other conferences.It's not like this is going to be a problem unique to the B1G.
In the future, it's entirely possible that TV markets will matter less than a compelling product.
MOV Game (Tiebreaker ONLY)
Jacksonville State v. Auburn -- Auburn by 42
Thursday
LA Tech v. WKU (-3.5) NO COVER
Friday
Utah State v. Utah (-13.5) COVER
Saturday
Houston v. Louisville (-12.5) NO COVER
Oregon State v. Michigan (-15.5) NO COVER
Notre Dame (-19.5) v. Virginia NO COVER
Iowa (-7.5) v. Iowa State NO COVER
Oklahoma (-7.5) v. Tennessee COVER
Oregon (-3.5) v. Michigan State NO COVER
LSU (-9.5) v. MSU NO COVER
UCF v. Stanford (-14.5) COVER
Jacksonville State v. Auburn -- Auburn by 42
Thursday
LA Tech v. WKU (-3.5) NO COVER
Friday
Utah State v. Utah (-13.5) COVER
Saturday
Houston v. Louisville (-12.5) NO COVER
Oregon State v. Michigan (-15.5) NO COVER
Notre Dame (-19.5) v. Virginia NO COVER
Iowa (-7.5) v. Iowa State NO COVER
Oklahoma (-7.5) v. Tennessee COVER
Oregon (-3.5) v. Michigan State NO COVER
LSU (-9.5) v. MSU NO COVER
UCF v. Stanford (-14.5) COVER
I know. I just wonder if they might have been a bit overaggressive in expansion compared to the other conferences.
In the future, it's entirely possible that TV markets will matter less than a compelling product.
Honestly, the Big Ten's issue with compelling product isn't Maryland and Rutgers, it's Michigan and Penn State.
Rutgers and Maryland were about supplementing Michigan and Penn State with talent heavy states (we aren't Florida/Texas/Cali/Georgia ... but we aren't Nebraska either) ... that weren't exactly being tapped by their State Universities.
2014's class was mostly Mack Brown's class that Strong inherited. 2015 is all Strong and co's class ( his first full class at Texas). So Wickline hasn't really had a chance to develop his hand selected guys.
The offensive line was really overlooked/not focused on for Mack's last few years. Jake Raulerson (SP?) was the last major recruit I remember from his days and he still is not starting.
Meanwhile A&M has been cleaning up with all of the O-Line talent. I hope no one expected 10 wins this year because it was never going to happen. Strong needs at least another year possibly two. It is sad but the talent is just not in the right places right now.
Regardless, new play caller for UT this week. We'll see if that changes anything but the play calling was horrible and I still think Shawn Watson has shown that he does not know how to put our offense in a position to succeed with the personnel we have.
BertramCooper
Banned
I know. I just wonder if they might have been a bit overaggressive in expansion compared to the other conferences.
In the future, it's entirely possible that TV markets will matter less than a compelling product.
I don't think Colorado and Utah have been any more beneficial to the Pac-12 than Rutgers and Maryland have been to us.
I don't think Colorado and Utah have been any more beneficial to the Pac-12 than Rutgers and Maryland have been to us.
Utah got one of the few decent wins for the conference this weekend, so there's that.
MOV Game (Tiebreaker ONLY)
Jacksonville State v. Auburn -- Auburn by 35
Thursday
LA Tech v. WKU (-3.5) NO COVER
Friday
Utah State v. Utah (-13.5) COVER
Saturday
Houston v. Louisville (-12.5) COVER
Oregon State v. Michigan (-15.5) NO COVER
Notre Dame (-19.5) v. Virginia COVER
Iowa (-7.5) v. Iowa State COVER
Oklahoma (-7.5) v. Tennessee COVER
Oregon (-3.5) v. Michigan State NO COVER
LSU (-9.5) v. MSU NO COVER
UCF v. Stanford (-14.5) COVER
It's safe to say the SEC has gotten the biggest bang for their buck by adding Aggy and Mizzou.
Jacksonville State v. Auburn -- Auburn by 35
Thursday
LA Tech v. WKU (-3.5) NO COVER
Friday
Utah State v. Utah (-13.5) COVER
Saturday
Houston v. Louisville (-12.5) COVER
Oregon State v. Michigan (-15.5) NO COVER
Notre Dame (-19.5) v. Virginia COVER
Iowa (-7.5) v. Iowa State COVER
Oklahoma (-7.5) v. Tennessee COVER
Oregon (-3.5) v. Michigan State NO COVER
LSU (-9.5) v. MSU NO COVER
UCF v. Stanford (-14.5) COVER
That's probably true. But just because CU and Utah kinda suck doesn't make adding Maryland and Rutgers good gets. They're all uninspiring additions.BertramCooper said:I don't think Colorado and Utah have been any more beneficial to the Pac-12 than Rutgers and Maryland have been to us.
It's safe to say the SEC has gotten the biggest bang for their buck by adding Aggy and Mizzou.
I don't think Colorado and Utah have been any more beneficial to the Pac-12 than Rutgers and Maryland have been to us.
I don't know, Utah brought that coveted TV market to the PAC-12.
To add to the list of things that Texas AD Patterson is doing that ticks people off, apparently they'll be charging Tech for tickets for our band this year. Charging for band seating isn't all that uncommon in college football, to be sure, but apparently 1. none of the original Big 12 schools from Texas (Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, A&M) have ever charged each other for band seating before, and 2. the actual charge per ticket ($100) is higher than any price Tech has ever paid any school per seat. Apparently something similar has gone down with Rice that ticked them off and they're not bringing their band to Austin at all this weekend.
Admittedly, this is probably one of those stories that's low level enough that we never even hear about it if not for all the other crap Patterson has been doing lately.
Not a huge fan of that move. Not sure what it is like nationally though. If this relationship was one of the last out there than I somewhat understand it but it probably should have been discussed between the schools or something.
The big gets from the Utah/Colorado acquisition were 1) a CCG, 2) the Denver market, and 3) weakening/destabilizing other conferences.
3. Taking a founding member of the ACC was an alpha move by the Big Ten, and it was basically a FU to the ACC for their long winded plan for getting ND in.
You guys really do need some central time zone games though.
It's safe to say the SEC has gotten the biggest bang for their buck by adding Aggy and Mizzou.
Nebraska and Aggies were the two biggest gets for sure.
BertramCooper
Banned
The primary motivators behind adding Maryland and Rutgers were expanding BTN to more households (obviously) and catering to the massive B1G diaspora in NYC and DC.
I don't think anyone believed that adding Maryland and Rutgers was going to have a hugely positive impact on the conference's overall quality in football. (Maryland was a huge get for BB, though.) That doesn't necessarily mean it was a failure, though.
Conference expansion never really had anything do with improving any conference's overall competitiveness. It was an arms race, pure and simple.
I don't think anyone believed that adding Maryland and Rutgers was going to have a hugely positive impact on the conference's overall quality in football. (Maryland was a huge get for BB, though.) That doesn't necessarily mean it was a failure, though.
Conference expansion never really had anything do with improving any conference's overall competitiveness. It was an arms race, pure and simple.
I don't know, Utah brought that coveted TV market to the PAC-12.
The big gets from the Utah/Colorado acquisition were 1) a CCG, 2) the Denver market, and 3) weakening/destabilizing other conferences.
The funny part is that Colorado is the bigger get despite the fact that it has been a flaming trash heap of a program for several years.
The primary motivators behind adding Maryland and Rutgers were expanding BTN to more households (obviously) and catering to the massive B1G diaspora in NYC and DC.
I don't think anyone believed that adding Maryland and Rutgers was going to have a hugely positive impact on the conference's overall quality in football. (Maryland was a huge get for BB, though.) That doesn't necessarily mean it was a failure, though.
Conference expansion never really had anything do with improving any conference's overall competitiveness. It was an arms race, pure and simple.
Right, so what does Utah give the PAC-12 other than a warm body occupying that slot so that they can have a CCG? They don't really help out getting huge TV ratings. Do a lot of PAC 12 grads retire to Utah?
I think the PAC-12 took what they could get at the time. Adding Colorado makes sense because of the media market. Utah was just another school willing to move.
The funny part is that Colorado is the bigger get despite the fact that it has been a flaming trash heap of a program for several years.
Agreed. The league office is really pulling for their football team to get it together.
Right, so what does Utah give the PAC-12 other than a warm body occupying that slot so that they can have a CCG? They don't really help out getting huge TV ratings. Do a lot of PAC 12 grads retire to Utah?
I think the PAC-12 took what they could get at the time. Adding Colorado makes sense because of the media market. Utah was just another school willing to move.
They're pretty much just the best warm body we could get. There is a decent-sized Polynesian community there to recruit from occasionally, but there isn't much else they offer. The hope is that they develop into a bigger program with the extra resources that come with conference membership.
BertramCooper
Banned
Right, so what does Utah give the PAC-12 other than a warm body occupying that slot so that they can have a CCG? They don't really help out getting huge TV ratings. Do a lot of PAC 12 grads retire to Utah?
I think the PAC-12 took what they could get at the time. Adding Colorado makes sense because of the media market. Utah was just another school willing to move.
No clue.
BYU probably would have been a better target for the Pac-12 than Utah. Mormons are obviously most heavily concentrated in Utah, but they're pretty well distributed throughout the rest of the country. I'd imagine that BYU's overall reach is considerably larger than Utah's.
Apparently the Pac wasn't so hot about adding a religious school.No clue.
BYU probably would have been a better target for the Pac-12 than Utah. Mormons are obviously most heavily concentrated in Utah, but they're pretty well distributed throughout the rest of the country. I'd imagine that BYU's overall reach is considerably larger than Utah's.
BertramCooper
Banned
Apparently the Pac wasn't so hot about adding a religious school.
My guess as well.
No clue.
BYU probably would have been a better target for the Pac-12 than Utah. Mormons are obviously most heavily concentrated in Utah, but they're pretty well distributed throughout the rest of the country. I'd imagine that BYU's overall reach is considerably larger than Utah's.
They'd have to agree to play on Sundays to even be considered, even if you ignore the other issues.
I would think so unless they fix it. Nationally no one is going to get out of bed to watch OSU vs MD which is now the majority of the matchups involving big schools. It's watered down the conference too much and will probably make people ignore it more. Adding more conference games will help a little, but I don't see how they can really fix it now without dropping some lesser teams like Purdue or playing at least 10 conference games. Wish we could drop Purdue and add Notre Dame but that will never happen.
I can't see that happening until we have the eventual mega FB conference with only the big revenue schools. Indiana/Purdue for instance are closely joined at the hip so you're not kicking one out without the other.
I do think it's possible that in the long-term those two schools could be one FB program that would operate out of Indianapolis on the IUPUI campus if that's what it takes to keep up, but that would be after the Big Ten Network TV rights fees collapse.
Interesting talk about Utah, I was rooting for them the other day.
I don't think you'll have a mega "conference" but I think it's a matter of time before the P5 split off from the NCAA and create their own organization. Maybe at that point, they only play P5 teams. Essentially, anyone left on the outside would be screwed. Sorry UCF.
thefro said:I can't see that happening until we have the eventual mega FB conference with only the big revenue schools. Indiana/Purdue for instance are closely joined at the hip so you're not kicking one out without the other.
I do think it's possible that in the long-term those two schools could be one FB program that would operate out of Indianapolis on the IUPUI campus if that's what it takes to keep up, but that would be after the Big Ten Network TV rights fees collapse.
I don't think you'll have a mega "conference" but I think it's a matter of time before the P5 split off from the NCAA and create their own organization. Maybe at that point, they only play P5 teams. Essentially, anyone left on the outside would be screwed. Sorry UCF.
This is my dream.I don't think you'll have a mega "conference" but I think it's a matter of time before the P5 split off from the NCAA and create their own organization. Maybe at that point, they only play P5 teams. Essentially, anyone left on the outside would be screwed. Sorry UCF.
1) P5-only scheduling.
2) 8-team playoff.
Best sport ever.
I have to say that I'm shocked at how poorly Wickline has translated to UT so far. He always got a lot out of under the radar guys at OSU. Has the recruiting just not been up to snuff?
As far as upperclassmen go, he's gotten a little development out of Doyle, but guys like Flowers and Hutchins are complete trash. Perkins is a pretty good Guard but he's playing RT because they have nobody else there. He's also ran off a few good ones because of his coaching style which leaves Texas starting 2 true freshman at LT and RG .
The funny part is that Colorado is the bigger get despite the fact that it has been a flaming trash heap of a program for several years.
This is why I'm not too worried about Texas Tech's ultimate place in conference realignment. We've got a decently sized home city, likely the biggest portion of the DFW and Texas markets that's left after UT and A&M, and the Texas Legislature on our side.
I'm not going to say that we're 100% taken care of or anything but I like our position a lot more than I like some other schools. I think TCU and Baylor fans should be worried as their small enrollments, private status, and religious affiliations are going to weigh more in who wants to pick them up than their recent records in football will. I don't think Houston is ready for the big time right now either but if they can follow through on their plans to turn more of their fanbase into paying sports fans than simple degree holders they could be a name to watch out for as well. I know they're doing a lot of marketing to that effect and they're adding a lot of on campus dorms to try to break the perception of being a commuter school.
perfectchaos007
Member
This is my dream.
1) P5-only scheduling.
2) 8-team playoff.
Best sport ever.
nah. part of what makes CFB exciting is the lack of parity near the bottom of the FBS. I hope most teams schedule 1 or 2 teams outside the P5 per year so hopefully we'll have one or two major wtf upsets over the course of the year. I want to see another Appalachian State over Michigan.
This is why I'm not too worried about Texas Tech's ultimate place in conference realignment. We've got a decently sized home city, likely the biggest portion of the DFW and Texas markets that's left after UT and A&M, and the Texas Legislature on our side.
I'm not going to say that we're 100% taken care of or anything but I like our position a lot more than I like some other schools. I think TCU and Baylor fans should be worried as their small enrollments, private status, and religious affiliations are going to weigh more in who wants to pick them up than their recent records in football will. I don't think Houston is ready for the big time right now either but if they can follow through on their plans to turn more of their fanbase into paying sports fans than simple degree holders they could be a name to watch out for as well. I know they're doing a lot of marketing to that effect and they're adding a lot of on campus dorms to try to break the perception of being a commuter school.
Tech has nothing to worry about just due to government alone.
MOV Game (Tiebreaker ONLY)
Jacksonville State v. Auburn -- Auburn by 40
Thursday
LA Tech v. WKU (-3.5) NO COVER
Friday
Utah State v. Utah (-13.5) COVER
Saturday
Houston v. Louisville (-12.5) NO COVER
Oregon State v. Michigan (-15.5) COVER
Notre Dame (-19.5) v. Virginia COVER
Iowa (-7.5) v. Iowa State NO COVER
Oklahoma (-7.5) v. Tennessee COVER
Oregon (-3.5) v. Michigan State NO COVER
LSU (-9.5) v. MSU COVER
UCF v. Stanford (-14.5) NO COVER
Jacksonville State v. Auburn -- Auburn by 40
Thursday
LA Tech v. WKU (-3.5) NO COVER
Friday
Utah State v. Utah (-13.5) COVER
Saturday
Houston v. Louisville (-12.5) NO COVER
Oregon State v. Michigan (-15.5) COVER
Notre Dame (-19.5) v. Virginia COVER
Iowa (-7.5) v. Iowa State NO COVER
Oklahoma (-7.5) v. Tennessee COVER
Oregon (-3.5) v. Michigan State NO COVER
LSU (-9.5) v. MSU COVER
UCF v. Stanford (-14.5) NO COVER
Screw that. I don't care to watch 130 boring non-conference games for the chance of a couple of upsets.nah. part of what makes CFB exciting is the lack of parity near the bottom of the FBS. I hope most teams schedule 1 or 2 teams outside the P5 per year so hopefully we'll have one or two major wtf upsets over the course of the year. I want to see another Appalachian State over Michigan.
TCU loses top linebacker, possibly sack leader for remainder of year.
Also, apparently USC true freshman RB Ronald Jones II was a bit anemic during training camp. He blames California's lack of Whataburger for his dizziness.
Also, apparently USC true freshman RB Ronald Jones II was a bit anemic during training camp. He blames California's lack of Whataburger for his dizziness.
timetokill
Banned
This is my dream.
1) P5-only scheduling.
2) 8-team playoff.
Best sport ever.
Here's my version:
1) FBS-only scheduling
2) 6-team playoff. Each of the P5 conference champs and one wild card.
Round 1: 6 @ 3, 5 @ 4
Round 2: 6/3 @ 2, 5/4 @ 1
Round 3: Championship Game
Only adds one game to the current setup and doesn't have 3 non-conf champs.
Perfection.
But, TTK, what about the Big-12 and its "co-champions"?Here's my version:
1) FBS-only scheduling
2) 6-team playoff. Each of the P5 conference champs and one wild card.
Round 1: 6 @ 3, 5 @ 4
Round 2: 6/3 @ 2, 5/4 @ 1
Round 3: Championship Game
Only adds one game to the current setup and doesn't have 3 non-conf champs.
Perfection.
Here's my version:
1) FBS-only scheduling
2) 6-team playoff. Each of the P5 conference champs and one wild card.
Round 1: 6 @ 3, 5 @ 4
Round 2: 6/3 @ 2, 5/4 @ 1
Round 3: Championship Game
Only adds one game to the current setup and doesn't have 3 non-conf champs.
Perfection.
Agreed, this is perfect.
timetokill
Banned
I mean the timing of One True Champion was so perfect.
The best part is that they still had to make a choice to declare co-champions instead of a single one and they willingly chose the option that was the exact opposite of the official slogan.
Purple Cheeto
Member
For a sports thread, we've shown a remarkably poor aptitude for grasping the concept of a point spread.
As an aside, mre, are you taking these spreads from somewhere or are you making them yourself?
The number of times on sports sites I've seen people mis-use over/under is amazing. Just cause people follow sports doesn't mean they're degenerate gamblers.
TCU loses top linebacker, possibly sack leader for remainder of year.
Also, apparently USC true freshman RB Ronald Jones II was a bit anemic during training camp. He blames California's lack of Whataburger for his dizziness.
I was listening to sports radio by accident on my way home the other night and they had Keith Rivers on and talking to him about coming to USC and asking if he ever got home sickness and I think they mentioned that at least one current USC player missed practice this year with homesickness, must've been this. I mean I remember having a brief moment of homesickness my freshman year, I actually missed rain for a few days. Then it rained and I remembered why I went to school in LA.
He should've stayed committed to us. Stillwater has a Whataburger!I was listening to sports radio by accident on my way home the other night and they had Keith Rivers on and talking to him about coming to USC and asking if he ever got home sickness and I think they mentioned that at least one current USC player missed practice this year with homesickness, must've been this. I mean I remember having a brief moment of homesickness my freshman year, I actually missed rain for a few days. Then it rained and I remembered why I went to school in LA.
They posted a video version too. mre, can you confirm this is you?So on this week's Shutdown Fullcast, they have a southern lawyer from Alabama at the beginning. Have we found an audio clip of mre?
The number of times on sports sites I've seen people mis-use over/under is amazing. Just cause people follow sports doesn't mean they're degenerate gamblers.
Fair enough, but a point spread seems to be the preferred method of representing odds for football even outside of a sports betting environment. It's not like we're talking about moneylines.
For a sports thread, we've shown a remarkably poor aptitude for grasping the concept of a point spread.
As an aside, mre, are you taking these spreads from somewhere or are you making them yourself?
For the record, my issues had less to do with grasping the concept of a point spread and more to do with the lack of basic reading comprehension skills, so that puts me PERFECTLY in line with the stereotype of sports fans.
So on this week's Shutdown Fullcast, they have a southern lawyer from Alabama at the beginning. Have we found an audio clip of mre?
he's not small town enough to be mre.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.