Mavric

And only one of those players has been in college in the last 40 years (although, to be fair, you could add Ahman Green and probably others). I'm curious how you can blame the system? Obviously we don't have a system like Texas where they pretty much play football year-round but that can't explain all of it. There are a lot more programs in place now than 30 years ago but there are still fewer elite athletes in the state (IMO). You see the same thing in basketball. I would say the main problems are lack of population and too many other things going on.

... to move the thread or cancel the program?

Those two things would seem to work in UCLA's favor.

Yeah, #56 looked terrible trying to block him but Peat made it look easy.

He was listed as a starter. I didn't see the start of the game but he was in on 2-3 possesions late in the first quarter and early in the 2nd. Didn't really get a chance to make any plays but he looked aggressive. Hasn't been in the last couple series.

Seems to give up just a little too much ground before he gets set but once he does - WOW! GREAT feet and once he's got you squared up, you're not going anywhere.

There's a reason, Running Back is a so rough on bodies you basically have to get to the money while they are still young and able to play, they don't want to shorten an already statistically short pro career. Any running back that gets a draft eval back for the first one or two rounds should almost definitely be headed pro. Totally agree. That's why I'm shocked he's back.

Interesting that "Non-FBS" was second in Passing Yard %.

B1G has 7 so that's not too bad.

No longer mulling, will return to Wisc (per ESPN).

It's becoming an epidemic!

Maybe they're using "flagrant" differently than the rule book does but I didn't see any here. Hard fouls, yes. Possibly "Intentional" (difference in the rule book) but probably not flagrant. #1 was a big swing but I'm not really sure he hit him that hard #2 isn't any worse than you see in about any game. #3 looks really bad the first time but when you watch again, he doesn't really even hit the kid and stops his swing (doesn't swing through like he was trying to hurt him) #4 should definetly been an intentional foul but not flagrant (flagrant meaning disqualification) #5 would be the closest. Again, I would definitely call it intentional. Since they all seem to be in the same game, I would be getting pretty suspicious by now but by itself, I'm not sure about flagrant. The big thing to me was there wasn't a big swing or push. It looks really bad but he just stuck his arm out and is a much bigger guy. #6 is again not much different from what you probably see every game All that being said, I think "thugs" is a pretty apt description. Most of that stuff by itself isn't worthy of throwing a kid out (which is the consequence of a "flagrant" foul) but, if I was the opposing coach, I'd be having a good conversation with the refs. I don't think there's any question they are trying to be really physical - beyond how the game's supposed to be played.

+ Arnett - Cunningham = Probably about a wash.

That's probably just gas I hope it passes. (Was that too much?)

I don't like it any more than anyone else. But you also have to look around. You phrased it slightly differently but a lot of people say "losing to teams we shouldn't." I did some checking on this awhile ago (I'd have to start over on "unranked" so I'll use the "shouldn't lose to" for now). By my count, LSU, Alabama, Kansas St. and one other team (can't remember which now) were the only teams that hadn't lost to someone they "shouldn't lose to" in the last two years. That's it - only four teams have gone TWO YEARS without losing to "someone they shouldn't". We have a good team but not a great team. I wish we had a great team but we don't. Neither does most the rest of the country. We're far, far ahead of where we were although we didn't make progress this year. Even being a really good team doesn't make you immune (just ask Okie St. or Wisconsin). That's just how college football is now. Off the top of my head. Oregon? Stanford? Arkansas? Hell, Iowa State? Not good records, but have they really lost to teams that they "shouldn't" have lost to? See, that's what I get for trying to do it from memory. Oregon, Stanford and Arkansas would be there along with LSU which should have been the four. K St. was OK this year but they were terrible last year. I think you could make an arguement that Alabama "shouldn't have" lost to 9-5 South Carolina last year but they might have been the fifth. So that's 4-5 over the last two years. If you think anyone would be happy going 5-7 then 6-7 like Iowa St. just so they didn't lose to someone they "shouldn't have", be my guest.

We averaged less points per game and gave up more points per game with same number of losses and a worse in-conference record. Spin it however you want but I didn't see much for progress. It's not that I don't think any progress was made, because there definitely was in some areas (like you mentioned). But we also went backwards in other areas due to losing some very good players, changing coaches or whatever. I just think, overall, the progress in some areas was generally offset by slipping in others.

Our lack of patience and perspective is amazing. I've seen my 3 year wait for ice cream more patiently than we wait for the national championship we "deserve". We make 3rd generation welfare moms seem appreciative of their checks compared to us appreciating our success of winning 9 games a season. I agree. There is a HUGE difference between expecting to compete for a National Championship every year and thinking that anything less if failure. The first group aren't any less passionate but also reasonable. The second group need to look around at other schools that have won a National Title more recently at us and see how hard it is to stay on top (even at places that enjoy a lot more advantages than NU): Tennessee, Miami, Ohio St. (self-inflicted), Texas, Florida.

He is apparently still trying to decide between ND and UCLA for his last officail visit. Tough to believe he is that high on ND if he isn't even sure he's going to visit there.

Will be sorely missed. Unlikely to be replaced by one player. Hopefully we have two (or three) backers who can make up for losing one great one.

What's the over/under for Donkey Points awarded for the Orange Bowl? -24?

You've got some good points but I'll look at a couple: I don't like it any more than anyone else. But you also have to look around. You phrased it slightly differently but a lot of people say "losing to teams we shouldn't." I did some checking on this awhile ago (I'd have to start over on "unranked" so I'll use the "shouldn't lose to" for now). By my count, LSU, Alabama, Kansas St. and one other team (can't remember which now) were the only teams that hadn't lost to someone they "shouldn't lose to" in the last two years. That's it - only four teams have gone TWO YEARS without losing to "someone they shouldn't". We have a good team but not a great team. I wish we had a great team but we don't. Neither does most the rest of the country. We're far, far ahead of where we were although we didn't make progress this year. Even being a really good team doesn't make you immune (just ask Okie St. or Wisconsin). That's just how college football is now. I just think you're flat wrong on this. We ran the same play about 11 times in a row against Washington and again against Wyoming. We run the "Toss G" with regularity. One game (can't remember which now) Burkhead was under center and ran option about three times in a row. We run the old-fashioned option several times each game. I don't really remember us getting away from our base gameplan until we are forced to by time remaining or down & distance.

Brings me back to the Virginia Tech game in 08 I think. Pelini blew up, and you could see how it impacted the outcome of the game. A&M as well. Getting screwed by the refs or not, his temper has a dramtic impact on the game. So how do you explain the games where he kept his cool and we still fell apart (Wisc, Mich)? The players are just used to it so they did a peremptory collapse? I'm not saying there isn't anything to it but I find it hard to blame fumbles, false starts, dropped punt snaps, pass interferences, hail marys, roughing the kickers, blown double-coverages and dropped passes on the coaches temper.

Not really sure what happened to Clemson. It's not exactly shocking that WV can put up points - especially when Clemson helps with 3 TOs - but Clemson can't do anything anymore.

And they broke the record for combined points scored with over nine minutes left ... in the 3rd quarter.

The "down by contact" language has crept into the college game but I'm pretty sure it's only an NFL rule. In college you are just down - no contact needed. Even at that, I believe the NFL changed that replay rule a few years ago. Even "down by contact" is now reviewable in the NFL (I think).