Some thoughts...week #1

[billybud]

UNC vs South Carolina....

UNC could have won that game. Their RB, Hood, was not being stopped and they didn't play him when they were inside the 9....coaching calls hurt the Heels. They should have won this one. But fairly evenly matched teams and a good game.

Auburn vs Louisville....

Auburn didn't look like a #6 playing against unranked Louisville. Louisville's fumble on Auburn's 18 not only cost the Cards a scoring opportunity but Auburn's 82 yard return for a TD was the game difference. I don't think this game helped Auburn stand out, but a W is a W.

Alabama vs Wisconsin...

You just knew it. It would only be a matter of time before the Bama rushing game would be too much for the Cheese Heads. And holding Wisconsin to 17...which could be Wisconsin's lowest scoring games this year. Bama looked pretty good.

Texas vs Notre Dame....

Ugh! This was ugly for the Horns. How did Texas, with their recruiting, slide this far? The Irish QB, Zaire, was impressive with his arm and feet. The kid is a shape shifter when on the move. The Irish looked very good. Texas, and their QB, did not.

Stanford vs Northwestern

A very nice win for Northwestern against a ranked Stanford. And very nice defensive play. I don't think that Northwestern is necessarily a good team, but their defensive side matched up very well with Stanford's offense. I may have to change my mind on Northwestern if their offense improves and they win some of their bigger conference games...but then again, Northwestern beat 11 win Wisconsin last year while only winning five games themselves. They can have a good game in an off season, so I am still awaiting the rest of the story.

TCU vs Minnesota...

Still thinking about this game...way closer than I thought it was going to be. I don't know how to attribute that outcome...Minnesota's prowess or TCU's lack of the same....Awaiting further data. A fun game to watch.

FSU vs North Texas...

Nobody saw this game (unless you paid for ESPN News). Jimbo started Golson slow...running the ball the first half and then opening Golson up in the second half...370 yards passing and 266 rushing.....59-16 score. But it was Texas State. A good start for a very young team...the new O line looked pretty decent, nine true freshmen played. But still awaiting further data to get an idea of what the season may look like.

[donovan]

Good report.

Did not seen the FSU game for the reason you stated. Same happened with Oregon v. Eastern Washington...unless you had PACN only on comcast, was not available. Oregon State v Weber told us nothing, more subs that at Jimmy Johns.

The PAC12 is not as bad as the pundits seem to think, but it is not good. Washington St losing to Portland State is unfathomable. Too many points were scored against Oregon regardless of how many they scored.

BYU v Nebraska, despite all of the hoopla, which is good, got paid One Million for playing in Nebraska...that has to hurt.

Bosie State v Washington told us Petersen has problems to fix at UW and Boise had better play four quarters, not two. Boise State v BYU at Provo this next week could be wild. Might be game of the week, if there is money in it.

[Derek]

Auburn vs Louisville....

Auburn didn't look like a #6 playing against unranked Louisville. Louisville's fumble on Auburn's 18 not only cost the Cards a scoring opportunity but Auburn's 82 yard return for a TD was the game difference. I don't think this game helped Auburn stand out, but a W is a W.

Alabama vs Wisconsin...

You just knew it. It would only be a matter of time before the Bama rushing game would be too much for the Cheese Heads. And holding Wisconsin to 17...which could be Wisconsin's lowest scoring games this year. Bama looked pretty good.

I'm hoping the Auburn game is a sign of their hype being overblown...

I thought Wisky had a chance since they played it pretty close last year and with Alabama being weaker this year, I suspected an upset. I still like Ga''s chances of winning over Bama.

[Spence]

Wisky is one dimensional. It isn't that tough to stop a one hit wonder.

[Eric]

That's what has always bugged me about Wisconsin and Minnesota. I like what they do to some extent. They are one-dimensional, but against the lesser 75% of NCAA football, they do that one-dimension so well that they're going to win most of the time. Against elite competition though, it's easy to get them to stall and get out of their element. That's why I like Minnesota, but they are going to have a ceiling with Jerry Kill until he recruits a dual-threat QB who can throw. And it's why Wisconsin is rarely championship-level good, and the one time they were, they nabbed Russell Wilson out of the (in essence) free agents.

I agree on the UNC game too. I thought they should have won the game, maybe not "easily", but it's a game they had. Marquise Williams looked off, to say the least. That game's over/under was really high and the final was 17-13? Yeah, probably out-of-sync offenses are to blame there. Connor Mitch isn't the answer, he looked awful. My guess is South Carolina misses the postseason and that this win was, in all actuality, an upset-in-disguise.

[Eric]

I think the NW/Stanford outcome was due to three factors: Northwestern is a little better on both sides of the ball than they were last year, Stanford is overrated (and I think the last remaining "Harbaugh residue" has finally subsided for good, so it's all Shaw's show), and Stanford had to go across two time zones. That's always difficult for West coast teams.

[Spence]

That's what has always bugged me about Wisconsin and Minnesota. I like what they do to some extent. They are one-dimensional, but against the lesser 75% of NCAA football, they do that one-dimension so well that they're going to win most of the time. Against elite competition though, it's easy to get them to stall and get out of their element. That's why I like Minnesota, but they are going to have a ceiling with Jerry Kill until he recruits a dual-threat QB who can throw. And it's why Wisconsin is rarely championship-level good, and the one time they were, they nabbed Russell Wilson out of the (in essence) free agents.

I agree on the UNC game too. I thought they should have won the game, maybe not "easily", but it's a game they had. Marquise Williams looked off, to say the least. That game's over/under was really high and the final was 17-13? Yeah, probably out-of-sync offenses are to blame there. Connor Mitch isn't the answer, he looked awful. My guess is South Carolina misses the postseason and that this win was, in all actuality, an upset-in-disguise.

Both their games work in the upper Midwest in the late fall and winter. Not so much in the early fall. Wisky usually has an efficient QB and that makes them work mostly as a change of pace. Alabama's front seven on defense is as good as you get in college FB so it isn't surprising that they stopped the run and that is the key to making Wisky look bad. Minney really isn't that good when it is warm and dry. Let the snow start falling, though, and they just delight in the wet slippery conditions.

[billybud]

Well...there is not much playing in snow in college in the Big Ten....NFL games in December and January, maybe.

The cold winter Big Ten play is mainly a myth...This study was done in 2009:

"All 11 teams had an average game-day temperature between 51-59 degrees. Purdue had the warmest average temperature (58.4 degrees), though Ross-Ade Stadium hosted only one game after Oct. 24. Iowa and Minnesota had the coldest average temperature (51.4 degrees), though they combined to play only three games with temps in the 30s.

Of the 77 Big Ten home games last fall, only six were played in sub-40-degree temperatures and only one -- Illinois' matchup with Fresno State -- took place in sub-30-degree temps. And remember that the Illinois-Fresno State game was played Dec. 5, two weeks after any other Big Ten home game.

"The words 'freezing' and 'frozen' were completely inappropriate for describing Big Ten football in 2009. ... Only 6 games out of 77 were played in weather below 40 degrees. There's a 92% chance that any given Big Ten game will be played in the 40s, 50s, 60s, or 70s. That's perfect football weather."

[highfly24]

Nothing more to say on that UNC game. No reason they should have lost except Williams suddenly felt like a freshman again and made just awful decisions over and over.

Oregon's defense looked very suspect. If Vernon Adams cant play at 100% at Mich State I don't see them winning. Pac 12 took a step forward last season but it might take one back this year. Az State looked average at best against an A&M team that isn't much better than average IMO. Wazzou losing was just awful, Portland State is not good at all. Stanford's loss was surprising to me, and is another dagger to the conf perception. Washington should get better as the season goes but they could do nothing offensively. And Arizona lost their top defensive player, there was very little positive coming out of the Pac 12 this 1st weekend. Even Utah's win is being touted more as how Michigan looked improved.

Either Texas is way worse than I expected or Notre Dame is better. I know Notre Dame is going to have a good year but dang. Temple manhandled Penn State. That offense could do nothing. Lot of people were looking forward to their game vs Ohio State, better find an o-line by then.

[Spence]

Well...there is not much playing in snow in college in the Big Ten....NFL games in December and January, maybe.

The cold winter Big Ten play is mainly a myth...This study was done in 2009:

"All 11 teams had an average game-day temperature between 51-59 degrees. Purdue had the warmest average temperature (58.4 degrees), though Ross-Ade Stadium hosted only one game after Oct. 24. Iowa and Minnesota had the coldest average temperature (51.4 degrees), though they combined to play only three games with temps in the 30s.

Of the 77 Big Ten home games last fall, only six were played in sub-40-degree temperatures and only one -- Illinois' matchup with Fresno State -- took place in sub-30-degree temps. And remember that the Illinois-Fresno State game was played Dec. 5, two weeks after any other Big Ten home game.

"The words 'freezing' and 'frozen' were completely inappropriate for describing Big Ten football in 2009. ... Only 6 games out of 77 were played in weather below 40 degrees. There's a 92% chance that any given Big Ten game will be played in the 40s, 50s, 60s, or 70s. That's perfect football weather."

It was 39 degrees game time last year before the Illinois game. Kickoff temperature at game time in Minnesota was 15 degrees. It was 41 at game time for Michigan. 39 at game time for Michigan State. Of course the temperature generally drops from there. Not that 40 degrees is bad. If it would have been warm during the day 40 is nice. But when the ground gets hard in November it lends itself to smashmouth football and Ohio State isn't built for smash mouth anymore and that will be a problem some years late in the season. I have lived in Ohio most of my life and I have seen 65-70 in November. I have seen temps in the teens. The normal is 35-45 for highs and colder at night. Early November to late November can be a big change. I see you picked 2009 - a year I played golf at least one day every week of the fall-winter- spring.


It was snowing pretty good in Minnesota last year when Ohio State played them. The Illinois game last year was pretty cold too. Game time was below 40. The cold I was feeling may have been a myth, but it felt pretty real. The snow in Minney was kind of a nasty slippery cold wet mess of a myth.

[billybud]

Sure some games can be cold...but the myth of the snowing Big Ten games and the need for gtound pounding is a myth. By and large, the Big Ten plays a fall sport in nice fall weather...the data is the data.

Yeah, I have sat in some ugly weather down south, 16 degrees against North Carolina, various monsoons, 110 on the field in Tallahassee...also have been in Columbus twice and Michigan once and Notre Dame once in nice fall weather.

We all can have an isolated weird weather game...but snow is rare in a Big Ten game. That's just a fact...90% of the games are in fall weather.

[Spence]

Sure some games can be cold...but the myth of the snowing Big Ten games and the need for gtound pounding is a myth. By and large, the Big Ten plays a fall sport in nice fall weather...the data is the data.

Yeah, I have sat in some ugly weather down south, 16 degrees against North Carolina, various monsoons, 110 on the field in Tallahassee...also have been in Columbus twice and Michigan once and Notre Dame once in nice fall weather.

We all can have an isolated weird weather game...but snow is rare in a Big Ten game. That's just a fact...90% of the games are in fall weather.

Snow is rare until late November. But what is different between here and in the south is that even though they will have some cold days, the constant 35 and below nights make the ground rock hard and the artificial surface always slippery. Like I said, it doesn't make playing football hard, if just changes the kind of football that is generally successful late in the season. Smash mouth teams like Wisconsin generally have more success in late November than they do in Sept, when speed rules the day. It doesn't mean that teams built for speed can't win in late November, it just makes it a little harder.

[Eric]

Yeah I mean 45 and windy in November with cloud cover isn't a picnic. I think the general point still stands.

[Spence]

Also it should be stated that Columbus and Bloomington are a couple of the warmer spots in the Big Ten. Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota can be nasty in the late fall.

[Spence]

It seems like it is getting pretty warm in Blacksburg tonight. At least for the Buckeyes.