Irish comeback a heart stopper.

[keithdog]

In another post, I was questioned about my opinion regarding yesterdays Irish victory. Well, here goes. Even the best of teams can loose if they are playing less than their best, and the other team is playing at their best. Yesterday was no exception. The game never should have gone into OT.

The Irish had 2 key turnovers in the endzone, had missed kicking opportunities including an extra point, and the defense, one of the nations best, had their worst performance of the season. They could have lost had Pitt not missed the field goal in the OT, but likewise could be said about the Irish missing key opportunities in regular game time.

I don't know what it is about Pitt, but they always play the Irish very tough. The last time the Irish were 8-0 and highly ranked, it was Pitt who came to South Bend and upset the Irish. And pitts record at THAT time was also 4-4. I have to give Pitt credit, they played exceptionall well. But then, when you are undefeated as the Irish are, everyone is going to play inspired and give 110% effort to upset you. It was a good learning game and conditioning game for the Irish. They, along with Bama, learned they CAN be defeated unless they are always playing at the top of their game.

The Irish are 9-0 and I truely believe they will win oput the season now that they are past Pitt. Yes, USC worries me as they are another team who gives the Irish fits. But the Irish this season have always performed at their best when facing a tough opponet. I have no doubt they will arrive in LA with the same focus they had on Oklahoma.

[bamabassman]

i didn't watch the entire game keith. but it seemed to me that they (like bama) came into the game flat. it happens, teams do get flat and need a wake up call. the irish girls got theirs too. they , again like bama, better strap on the work hats if they want to go all the way. we got a&m this saturday. "johnnny football" is gonna be a hard fella to get ahold of. we have to play at our best. the irish do to. usc will give you all they got for sure. especially since oregon beat em. good luck.

sorry, my pain pill is kicking in and i and gettign sloppy(ER) in my typing.

[USMCbassman]

I'm glad to see ND pull it off....

Nothing personal Bama, but I needed and wanted your boys to lose. I was hoping my Wildcats were going to get that No. 1 spot in the BCS polls. Granted the BCS is nothing more than favoritism and computer so even if you all would've lost you'd probably still have No. 1 spot.

[WTL]

If Bama had lost there is no way we would be ahead of any of the undefeated teams, and probably right behind LSU. That is the fact.

The ND game was very exciting, and I am pulling for the irish to run the table up to Miami. Both close games yesterday had the feeling of those championship season type stumbles that great teams avoid.

[WTL]

If Bama had lost there is no way we would be ahead of any of the undefeated teams, and probably right behind LSU. That is the fact.

The ND game was very exciting, and I am pulling for the irish to run the table up to Miami. Both close games yesterday had the feeling of those championship season type stumbles that great teams avoid.

[bamabassman]

i agree billy. IF we had lost, and yes i conceded we did with only 3 mins left, we would be behind lsu andprobably not even going to the sec championship. which would all but knock us out of the NC game. it would most likely be oregon and ks in the big finalie.

iunderstand oyu wanting bama to lose marine, if the shoes were reversed i would do the same.

and yes, i think if notre dame does run the table, they COULD have a shot a tthe title.

and as for favortisim marine.....oyu can say it ain't so, but NO ONE wants alabama much less ANY team playing for the title again. there are a lot of times when bama SHOULD have been champs, but weren't. 1966 is jsut one of those years.

not gonna cry over lost years either. but please don't tell me bama is a national favorite. cuz they aren't.

[USMCbassman]

Originally Posted by WTL

If Bama had lost there is no way we would be ahead of any of the undefeated teams, and probably right behind LSU. That is the fact.

I said that somewhat facetiously....

[WTL]

Originally Posted by USMCbassman

I said that somewhat facetiously....

Yeah, I was wondering. Sarcasm doesnt come across on the internet as well, my bad.

[bamabassman]

it's cool marine. and yeah, someitmes we gotta add things lik"hahaha" or "lol" to let folks know we are joking.

now back to the irish. keith....how well do oyu think both teams match up? i mean, from the score usc and oregon had it SEEMS to me neither have a defense. and don't be like others saying "if oyu score a hundred points yo udon't need defense". spurrier thought that too when he was at florida. it worked for a while, but only for a while. when oyu play a GOOD defense oy won't score that much.

and i believe the irish defense is REALLY good. top 5 no doubt. we got our weaknesses pointed out to us last night. where do YOU, keith, think the irish weaknes is on defense?

also, oyur qb is coming along fine. showing more leadership and control with each game. how well do oyu think he can match up against usc's qb?

[WTL]

K State is the very intriguing matchup in the BCS game if it were to come down to it. Havent really watched them much this year, but I understand they are very physical and solid at everything.

[keithdog]

Originally Posted by bamabassman

it's cool marine. and yeah, someitmes we gotta add things lik"hahaha" or "lol" to let folks know we are joking.

now back to the irish. keith....how well do oyu think both teams match up? i mean, from the score usc and oregon had it SEEMS to me neither have a defense. and don't be like others saying "if oyu score a hundred points yo udon't need defense". spurrier thought that too when he was at florida. it worked for a while, but only for a while. when oyu play a GOOD defense oy won't score that much.

and i believe the irish defense is REALLY good. top 5 no doubt. we got our weaknesses pointed out to us last night. where do YOU, keith, think the irish weaknes is on defense?

also, oyur qb is coming along fine. showing more leadership and control with each game. how well do oyu think he can match up against usc's qb?

John, at the start of the season, pass defense was my main concern. And I would have to say that is their biggest issue. However that has improved quite a bit. They try to protect against the big play, but in doing so, give up shorter passes which allows the team to move downfield against them. After a while though, the defense really starts pressuring the QB which obviously disrupts offenses. Once inside the red zone, passing against the Irish is as tough as any defense around.
As for the QB comparison with USC's Matt Barkley, Barkley is clearly the more polished QB. However, Golson has better manuverabilty and has a great arm. With USC's defense being what it is, I think the Irish will tear apart USC's defense. The question though is can the Irish contain Barkleys passing attack. I think they can, in the long run. Look for quick strikes early on by USC, but then look for the Irish defense to take over. I don't think USC has played a defense that comes close to the Irish defense, so what Barkley can do against them is certainly a big question for USC. Therefore, while I think Barkley is the better QB right now, Golson will shine against that USC defense, while Barkley will struggle to move downfield from the second quarter on. Thats my prediction anyways.

[WatterBoy]

Originally Posted by bamabassman

it's cool marine. and yeah, someitmes we gotta add things lik"hahaha" or "lol" to let folks know we are joking.

now back to the irish. keith....how well do oyu think both teams match up? i mean, from the score usc and oregon had it SEEMS to me neither have a defense. and don't be like others saying "if oyu score a hundred points yo udon't need defense". spurrier thought that too when he was at florida. it worked for a while, but only for a while. when oyu play a GOOD defense oy won't score that much.

and i believe the irish defense is REALLY good. top 5 no doubt. we got our weaknesses pointed out to us last night. where do YOU, keith, think the irish weaknes is on defense?

also, oyur qb is coming along fine. showing more leadership and control with each game. how well do oyu think he can match up against usc's qb?

Originally Posted by WTL

K State is the very intriguing matchup in the BCS game if it were to come down to it. Havent really watched them much this year, but I understand they are very physical and solid at everything.

Have you guys watched any part of an Oregon game this year? While I'd love to see K-State or the Golden Domers play the Tide, the match-up I'd really like to see is the Ducks and Bama. IMO, the offense Oregon runs is more up-tempo than what Spurrier used to try to do, so I don't think that's a valid comparison. And Oregon is 21-2 the last 2 years, so I think what they are doing does work, not everyone has to have a "Bama defense" to be a good team.

[bamabassman]

you are correct dean...2 years ago AUBURN had a good defense. shut down oregon, is that enough validation? really, i am asking. what is different form THAT team and THIS oregon team?

bama's defense isn't what i htought it was. last years defense was much better in my opion. the up tempo does concern me. but i think that the lack of defense on oregon's side will negate their offense. history has proven, DEFENSE wins championships. not offense. so therefore.....i say oregon is still not that great a TEAM overall. you have to have defense.

wasn't it oregons coach who said he kept scoring cause he KNEW usc would continue to score?

also what is alabama record over the last 2 years?

now kansas state DOES have both offense AND defense, much like notre dame does. but in every team (including alabama) there are holes on BOTH sides of the ball. these final games are showing that with every team.

[WatterBoy]

Originally Posted by bamabassman

you are correct dean...2 years ago AUBURN had a good defense. shut down oregon, is that enough validation? really, i am asking. what is different form THAT team and THIS oregon team?

bama's defense isn't what i htought it was. last years defense was much better in my opion. the up tempo does concern me. but i think that the lack of defense on oregon's side will negate their offense. history has proven, DEFENSE wins championships. not offense. so therefore.....i say oregon is still not that great a TEAM overall. you have to have defense.

wasn't it oregons coach who said he kept scoring cause he KNEW usc would continue to score?

also what is alabama record over the last 2 years?

now kansas state DOES have both offense AND defense, much like notre dame does. but in every team (including alabama) there are holes on BOTH sides of the ball. these final games are showing that with every team.

I am fine agreeing to disagree on all of this. Let me rephrase my original question. Have you seen one single live play of an Oregon or KSU game this year? Remember all that "we believe 8-0" MSU nonsense the week before bama vs. MSU? Now where are they...7-2 (and with a home beatdown besides) because they hadn't played anyone yet, but everyone just looked at their record and judged them just like people do by only seeing Oregon's scores. I'm not saying Oregon has a good defense, just that I think they could give bama a great game and would have a good chance to win. And don't you think Saban thinks so also based on all the crying he was doing a few weeks ago about Oregon's style of offense? And you really want to compare Oregon of two years ago vs. this year's team? I would think just looking at Auburn then and now would give a good idea of how much a team could change in that amount of time. And ND is undefeated, but let's please not compare their offensive potential because it isn't even close. I'll let you tell me what bama's record is over the last 2 years since you follow them, but I'm pretty sure the only team Oregon lost to that bama didn't is USC, and I don't think bama has played them.

Oh, and "defense wins championships" is nothing but a cliche as far as I'm concerned. Everyone likes to say that, but I don't buy it.

[WTL]

Originally Posted by WatterBoy

I am fine agreeing to disagree on all of this. Let me rephrase my original question. Have you seen one single live play of an Oregon or KSU game this year? Remember all that "we believe 8-0" MSU nonsense the week before bama vs. MSU? Now where are they...7-2 (and with a home beatdown besides) because they hadn't played anyone yet, but everyone just looked at their record and judged them just like people do by only seeing Oregon's scores. I'm not saying Oregon has a good defense, just that I think they could give bama a great game and would have a good chance to win. And don't you think Saban thinks so also based on all the crying he was doing a few weeks ago about Oregon's style of offense? And you really want to compare Oregon of two years ago vs. this year's team? I would think just looking at Auburn then and now would give a good idea of how much a team could change in that amount of time. And ND is undefeated, but let's please not compare their offensive potential because it isn't even close. I'll let you tell me what bama's record is over the last 2 years since you follow them, but I'm pretty sure the only team Oregon lost to that bama didn't is USC, and I don't think bama has played them.

Oh, and "defense wins championships" is nothing but a cliche as far as I'm concerned. Everyone likes to say that, but I don't buy it.

Saban has a legit point about Oregon's offense. It actually is not the type of offense that gives Bama trouble anyways, but it may be dangerous as injuries do occur when players are overly tired. We just changed the rules of college football what, 2 years ago, to reduce the number of snaps - and the proliferation of speed offenses has now completely counteracted that. Meanwhile, we keep adding more games, will now have a 4 team playoff in addition to conference championships and a 12 game schedule...when is it too much football, along with reduced roster sizes meaning less depth....why can't you see that there is a real health issue here?

I do think with the Oregon style people whining over Saban's comments, you see a real reason why it may be tough to change the rules now. People will claim in is an attempt to weaken several teams because they have found something that works, and it will be hard to dispel that notion beyond doubt. But what if, for the sake of argument, it is moderately more dangerous to run 90 plays a game as opposed to 60? Shouldn't that be considered? Didn't Teddy Roosevelt have a hand in the elimination of the flying wedge formation, also for health reasons? These are tough questions. I wish a reasonable consensus was more possible.

But even in addition to the health issue is a style issue. Is it fair to not let defenses have time to substitute? Does it reduce the complexity and intellect of the game (something Saban's D is famous for) to something more simple and base? Is that a good thing? (you may think so, I don't)


Another point; yes Oregon may be better than the team from 2 years ago. TO this point, however, it appears that Alabama is certainly better than auburn of 2 years ago.

I'm glad you don't buy that defense wins championships. As long as non-sec teams reject that cliche, we have little to worry about.

[joedog]

Sorry anglers, as with most things it seems now a days, ITS ALL ABOUT the MONEY.

Football is the number one sports revunue generator on average for all colleges.
Don't believe me.

Total Revenue: $1.8 Billions
Total Profit : $721 Millions
Average Revenue per School : $14.6 Millions
Average Profit per School : $5.9 Millions

Let that sink in for a minute. The profit that schools make on college football, on average, is higher than MOST companies in America that are not in the Fortune 500. We are talking "profit" here. That is money that the school athletic departments can then use in whatever way they see fit. And note: almost NONE of that money goes to big coaching salaries, as the vast majority of coaching salaries is determined by a base salary set by the state and then added on to by boosters, sponsors, and other outside dollars.



http://louisvillesports.blogspot.com...-football.html
or

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2...rograms_m.html

In a nutshell,

http://louisvillesports.blogspot.com...-football.html



Similarly, in all subdivisions, two expense line items, grants-in-aid
and salaries and benefits, account for approximately 50 percent of
total expenses. (3.15) Thats coaches salaries and schoolarships.

It's all about the MONEY!

Yes I love college sports but Billy asked.

[bamabassman]

it's all good dean. and i ain't mad, but you seem to loo at NUMBERS more than anything. stats do come in the game and make a factor. BUT if it is JUST numbers then in my opion oyu have the game all wrong.

i am truly wishing that all levels of the game went back to IRONMAN football. same players play BOTH sides of the ball.only sub when a player is hurt. other than that, play offense AND defense.

as for bama's record... they are 20-1 so far. over last year and this year so far.

and joe makes a great point, money is a factor. i am also in favor of PAYING these playersSOMETHING. i mean every college is making money hand over fist on them. all they get is a college education. most don't finish because they go pro after their junior year. that is IF they are healthy. there has to be SOME way the kid is paid SOMETHING if he has a carreer ending injury or something. and the ones who don't go pro need something too. i ain't saying make them millionairs. jsut give them something. heck, if it were up to me. i would make it MADATORY that they FISNISH their degree before they are allowed to go pro. so few EVER get tehir degree and that is the shame of it all. the schools give them a scholarship, they play great, they leave. doesn't sound good for the PERSON. i often wonder jsut how many ACTUALLY finish their degree and have a plan for AFTER pro ball. i mean what is the average carreer span of a pro player. it vaires depending on position i know. running backs have fewer eyars versus linemen and so forth.

oh and dean...i HAVE watche oregon and kansas state play. oregon depends on a fast set and speed ot power really. k st is more balanced in my opion. better defense too. i watch all teams at one time or another. i laugh at USC. kiffin is a smart man...but he thinks he's smarter than he is. his ego makes mistakes because of that ego. k st has an outstanding coach. level headed oregon's coach is a good one too. he is smart, very smart.he knows his teams weaknesses and avoids them as much as possible. that makes a great coach. hide oyu weaknesses as best you can. saban is good at that too. bama's secondary is still not all that good. but saban blitizes to cover that up.


ok, meds are kicking in and i am starting to get sleepy. tomorrow i get this dang tooth problem fixed. dentist is out today. so meds and the lazy boy today. hahaha!!

[joedog]

John, good luck with your tooth tommorrow!

[WatterBoy]

Originally Posted by WTL

Saban has a legit point about Oregon's offense. It actually is not the type of offense that gives Bama trouble anyways, but it may be dangerous as injuries do occur when players are overly tired. We just changed the rules of college football what, 2 years ago, to reduce the number of snaps - and the proliferation of speed offenses has now completely counteracted that. Meanwhile, we keep adding more games, will now have a 4 team playoff in addition to conference championships and a 12 game schedule...when is it too much football, along with reduced roster sizes meaning less depth....why can't you see that there is a real health issue here?

I do think with the Oregon style people whining over Saban's comments, you see a real reason why it may be tough to change the rules now. People will claim in is an attempt to weaken several teams because they have found something that works, and it will be hard to dispel that notion beyond doubt. But what if, for the sake of argument, it is moderately more dangerous to run 90 plays a game as opposed to 60? Shouldn't that be considered? Didn't Teddy Roosevelt have a hand in the elimination of the flying wedge formation, also for health reasons? These are tough questions. I wish a reasonable consensus was more possible.

But even in addition to the health issue is a style issue. Is it fair to not let defenses have time to substitute? Does it reduce the complexity and intellect of the game (something Saban's D is famous for) to something more simple and base? Is that a good thing? (you may think so, I don't)


Another point; yes Oregon may be better than the team from 2 years ago. TO this point, however, it appears that Alabama is certainly better than auburn of 2 years ago.

I'm glad you don't buy that defense wins championships. As long as non-sec teams reject that cliche, we have little to worry about.

So how much time between plays do you propose to allow the defense to substitute in new players? Won't that cause issues at the end of the game when the offense is in hurry-up mode trying to score before the clock runs out?

I didn't say I don't value a good defense or think it's something you can build around. I just don't think it's as simple as the whole "defense wins championships" thing makes it sound. Just my opinion, so I'm sure there are plenty of non-SEC teams who subscribe to your way of thinking also.

[WatterBoy]

Originally Posted by bamabassman

it's all good dean. and i ain't mad, but you seem to loo at NUMBERS more than anything. stats do come in the game and make a factor. BUT if it is JUST numbers then in my opion oyu have the game all wrong.

i am truly wishing that all levels of the game went back to IRONMAN football. same players play BOTH sides of the ball.only sub when a player is hurt. other than that, play offense AND defense.

as for bama's record... they are 20-1 so far. over last year and this year so far.

and joe makes a great point, money is a factor. i am also in favor of PAYING these playersSOMETHING. i mean every college is making money hand over fist on them. all they get is a college education. most don't finish because they go pro after their junior year. that is IF they are healthy. there has to be SOME way the kid is paid SOMETHING if he has a carreer ending injury or something. and the ones who don't go pro need something too. i ain't saying make them millionairs. jsut give them something. heck, if it were up to me. i would make it MADATORY that they FISNISH their degree before they are allowed to go pro. so few EVER get tehir degree and that is the shame of it all. the schools give them a scholarship, they play great, they leave. doesn't sound good for the PERSON. i often wonder jsut how many ACTUALLY finish their degree and have a plan for AFTER pro ball. i mean what is the average carreer span of a pro player. it vaires depending on position i know. running backs have fewer eyars versus linemen and so forth.

oh and dean...i HAVE watche oregon and kansas state play. oregon depends on a fast set and speed ot power really. k st is more balanced in my opion. better defense too. i watch all teams at one time or another. i laugh at USC. kiffin is a smart man...but he thinks he's smarter than he is. his ego makes mistakes because of that ego. k st has an outstanding coach. level headed oregon's coach is a good one too. he is smart, very smart.he knows his teams weaknesses and avoids them as much as possible. that makes a great coach. hide oyu weaknesses as best you can. saban is good at that too. bama's secondary is still not all that good. but saban blitizes to cover that up.


ok, meds are kicking in and i am starting to get sleepy. tomorrow i get this dang tooth problem fixed. dentist is out today. so meds and the lazy boy today. hahaha!!

Sorry, my intent wasn't to come off at all as just "looking at the numbers". I was trying to say one can form a better opinion of a team by actually seeing them play rather than by just looking at the numbers. I think there are so many good, evenly matched teams now that there is a real fine line between winning and losing. That was in evidence last week when ND had to rely on Pitt missing a FG to win that game, and Alabama made a nice comeback to beat LSU, although that game seemed like it could have gone either way also.

Hope you get that tooth fixed soon!

[bamabassman]

dean, i ain't into the amount of time to sub bud. it jsut seems to me if oyu are gonna run that style of offense, oyu are trying real hard ot overcome other things. am i making my slef clear? i really am kinda in a haze right now,lol.

and as for the numbers thing, i meant qb numbers, rb numbers, reciever numbers, sacks and so forth. i have seen so many heisman winners win JUST because of how many numbers they put up. in MY opion, the heisman has gotten away from what it was meant to be. HOW MANY THROWS,COMPLETIONS,INTERCEPTIONS, BLAH,BLAH...BLAH don't mean a HTING as who is the BEST player is.

the linebacker for notre dame is a PRIME example of what i think a heisman candidate should be. as well as our qb...A LEADER. these guys that are at the top of the list are putting up great stats....but their team is losing and not gonna be in the title hunt.

i am losing track of my thoughts and the keyboard is getting fuzzy, hahaha. i'll try to explain later when i can think clearly.

[WatterBoy]

Originally Posted by bamabassman

dean, i ain't into the amount of time to sub bud. it jsut seems to me if oyu are gonna run that style of offense, oyu are trying real hard ot overcome other things. am i making my slef clear? i really am kinda in a haze right now,lol.

and as for the numbers thing, i meant qb numbers, rb numbers, reciever numbers, sacks and so forth. i have seen so many heisman winners win JUST because of how many numbers they put up. in MY opion, the heisman has gotten away from what it was meant to be. HOW MANY THROWS,COMPLETIONS,INTERCEPTIONS, BLAH,BLAH...BLAH don't mean a HTING as who is the BEST player is.

the linebacker for notre dame is a PRIME example of what i think a heisman candidate should be. as well as our qb...A LEADER. these guys that are at the top of the list are putting up great stats....but their team is losing and not gonna be in the title hunt.

i am losing track of my thoughts and the keyboard is getting fuzzy, hahaha. i'll try to explain later when i can think clearly.

I'm with you 100% on the Heisman thing. I don't even care who wins it now because of what it's become. When I was younger, it used to be they'd play out the season and then look back and see who the "best" player was. Now we've got "Heisman candidate" lists that start prior to the season (or even this year for next year already!) and you lose the chance to win it with one bad throw/game/etc.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say Oregon is trying to overcome with the type of offense they run, but that's OK. And the question about "time allowed to sub" was a conversation with Billy.

[aikenyounggun]

In response to WTL, if an offense substitutes, the defense has to have the chane to. So its not like these offenses are just better at sub-ing. They have the skill and stamina to run their offense effectively. And Saban is just running his mouth, it would make there less competetion for his team (or a different look for them to prepare for). It takes immense skill (and endurance) to run that offense.

I get to watch the fast paced and exciting offense every weekend when I watch Clemson play. No way they will outlaw the style of play, and I would like to see legitimate evidence where it causes more injuries (other than there are just more plays). Lots of injuries happen on freak accidents (look at Marcus Lattimore the last two years (hope he is healing well)- blocking and tore up his knee, and then this year it was just an odd hit)