Replace Iowa with Michigan and you would be correct.
Rittenberg doing his best defend - make excuses for the BIG
- Thread starter jlb321
- Start date
Replace Iowa with Michigan and you would be correct.
MSU lost to Nebraska, and should have lost to Michigan.
Iowa, needed a 57 yard FG to beat Pitt, luckily beat Wisky due to a late fumble on the 2 or 3, and was less than impressive beating Nebraska, despite getting what, 4 pretty much unforced turnovers?
Neither MSU or Iowa was head and shoulders better than Nebraska, and as we saw, Iowa was pretty much on par with Wisky.
Iowa did not have to play any of the top 3 in the east, so sorry, just because you won the division, doesn't place you in the top 2.
Not sure why a Hawks fan is resorting to name calling other than you are so biased that you can't accept the truth, and are lurking other teams boards because you can't stand the truth, and are trying to revise recent history.
I've spent the last 20 plus years of my life doing one thing, trying to get to the truth. So I can be objective, even when dealing with my favorite team, unlike you. Oh and BTW, your BB team will best us badly in a few days. There, objectivity.
So sorry, OSU and Michigan are 1 and 2. Like it or dont, but most objective people would agree with the retard.
And for the record, I wanted Iowa to win, and I was glad they got the Rose Bowl bid. I took no joy in the ass whooping you got. But it appears the committee like I felt Iowa "deserved" the bid. We'll as we seen deserving doesn't mean best.
Iowa had a great season, where they had a favorable schedule, and the ball bounced your way repeatedly.
So why don't you explain how Iowa is better than Michigan, since you seem to concede that OSU is. The retard is dying to hear the explanation from the delusional dumbass.
I tend to agree that Michigan was better than MSU but have a hard time putting them second since MSU did beat both tOSU & Michigan (and Iowa). Along with the fact that they have won the last 3 along with 7 of 8 in the Michigan series. However, without question, these are the top 3.
I'll have to check the 1620 Podcast from this am at about 8 am to be sure, because I tuned is as they were talking about this very subject, but if I heard him right, Tom Luginbill might be a tard too.
Since most posts have something amusing in them, the search for truth and the oft repeated theme that we gave the game to Iowa this year contradict.
I post this because once you strip away the annoyance of losing to Iowa, the truth is those guys wouldn't allow the Huskers run on their four man front, got just enough disruption with a 4 man rush, and said' here kitty, kitty, throw all you want against our 7 man coverage in the cold and wind all day, while we chase your QB around, we know about 1/2 will hit the turf in front of our defense, the other half will be caught by you in front of our defense, or by us.' We played right into the hands of team that wasn't head and shoulders better as you said, but better this year none-the less(by what, 4 games in the standings?).
Now that we got a bit of truth and objectivity out of teh way how about a bit of opinion - next Year, is a new year... a MSU iowa rematch is unlikely. I kind of think a Nebraska or Iowa vs Michigan or Ohio State combo is most likely....and with what the four return and replace, potential is there for the West to be better at the top than the east. Heck, it wasn't much different at the top, middle, or bottom this year.
Carry on
I fail to see a contradiction or understand your point, and we did give the game to Iowa, mostly due to stupidity. That was never my point, but hey since you brought it up.
My point has always been that Iowa, the undefeated playoff contender at that point, was less than impressive knocking off an at the time 5-6 Nebraska team that turned it over 4 times. The truth is Iowa won the game, because they did not hurt themselves, but Nebraska did a damn good job of giving it away. I'll give Iowa credit on the pick 6. They blitzed and covered the screen, good defensive call at the right time. But the other 3? TA threw two ducks up for grabs, and the other right to a defender.
Nebraska out yarded them 433 to 250, and had the ball for 36 minutes. The game wasn't given to Iowa, it was gift wrapped. They might have won anyway, but it is also amazing that Nebraska still had a chance in the 4th quarter.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/matchup?gameId=400763576
Iowa's first touchdown was set up by two Nebraska personal fouls, its second touchdown was Hesse's interception return on a ball he tipped at the line of scrimmage, and its third was set up on punter Sam Foltz's late hit on Desmond King at the end of a punt return.
"Really shot ourselves in the foot," Huskers coach Mike Riley said. "The production was crazy different, time of possession, they were 0 for 9 on third down. There was a lot of good stuff in the game. It was those other parts we couldn't overcome."
I'd add TD #4 was a 68 yard run in the 3rd where Gerry was out after a questionable "Targeting" call, and Aaron Williams took a bad angle, played tag with the Umpire, and allowed the long TD.
Cross and Newby didn't have great stats running the ball, but Armstrong averaged 5.1 on 9 carries, and threw for 296, so its not like Iowa shut Nebraska down, considering Nebraska ended four non-scoring possession without punting.
As far as next year? You have to give Iowa the favorite tag in the west with Wisky having to start a new QB, and Nebraska will have some questions on both lines.
That's a weak sauce limp argument that many SEC fans employ whenever the SEC doesn't get it done in football. We just beat each other up and there's nothing left. OK.
Except you can actually make the argument in the SEC and the B1G hasn't been good enough in a while to do that. I know people hate hearing it, but yet again, the SEC will have more players drafted than anyone else, dominated bowl season, they prolly lead the recruiting rankings for the umpteenth year in a row, and after 'Bama dismantles Clemson they will have won 8 of the last 11 titles? I'm not sure, to lazy to look it up, but they proved yet again they rule. So when the SEC says that, there is some truth to it.
I guess I saw it differently....and objectively.
Baited TA into throwing where most QB's couldn't because there was no run game. lots of shallow and non threatening yards(defensive gameplan)
After going three and out after the 2nd half kickoff, the last time there was a chance to take the lead with the ball in our hands, they scored two touchdowns on three plays---in a fashion that we use to---which was the worst part. (offensive gameplan)
From that point on, frankly I didn't see them try to move the ball or get Beathard even close to touched, and let Neb throw all they wanted...into a 7 man coverage, with nothing even close to getting behind them, with wind swirling, clock ticking, and on and on.(shallowest statistically evaluation ever).
One glimmer of hope remaining, we are too afraid to run it on 4th and 1. (probably why Riley threw more than we like....we couldn't run with any consistency).
The comparative score, statistical analysis doesn't always paint an accurate picture....case in point....Nebraska had more yards and gave up fewer against Iowa than Stanford did. Iowa led wire to wire, and by double digits basically the entire 2nd...trailed wire to wire against Stanford...almost all of it by double digits.
I also doubt Gerry makes a difference on the TD runs...both audibles based upon our alignment called from the bench! More taking candy from a baby on their part.
Try to be objective
, and don't sell Nebraska out too early. Running won't be as easy as it was against UCLA in teh B1G, but if they let TA be a part of the run scheme, keep him out of 3rd and longs, Neb will score LOTS of points. Some malcontents are gone from teh defense too. Sometimes there is addition by subtraction.I guess I saw it differently....and objectively.
Baited TA into throwing where most QB's couldn't because there was no run game. lots of shallow and non threatening yards(defensive gameplan)
After going three and out after the 2nd half kickoff, the last time there was a chance to take the lead with the ball in our hands, they scored two touchdowns on three plays---in a fashion that we use to---which was the worst part. (offensive gameplan)
From that point on, frankly I didn't see them try to move the ball or get Beathard even close to touched, and let Neb throw all they wanted...into a 7 man coverage, with nothing even close to getting behind them, with wind swirling, clock ticking, and on and on.(shallowest statistically evaluation ever).
One glimmer of hope remaining, we are too afraid to run it on 4th and 1. (probably why Riley threw more than we like....we couldn't run with any consistency).
The comparative score, statistical analysis doesn't always paint an accurate picture....case in point....Nebraska had more yards and gave up fewer against Iowa than Stanford did. Iowa led wire to wire, and by double digits basically the entire 2nd...trailed wire to wire against Stanford...almost all of it by double digits.
I also doubt Gerry makes a difference on the TD runs...both audibles based upon our alignment called from the bench! More taking candy from a baby on their part.
Try to be objective
Stats and facts don't lie.
Buckeyes are a better team than Alabamie and would be a slight favorite in that game.
Urban will hopefully fire Tim Beck asap as he helped turn a Lamborghini into a Fiat.
I disagree, but that's what makes football fun. I would take Bama too. The point of my post though was that Ohio State would not humiliate Bama.
Similar threads
