brophog

And the counter argument is that since contact is so prevalent, such rulings makes it too easy for receivers to step out of bounds to create space. Both arguments have validity. Football is very much a game if pushing the definitions of the rules. I suppose I'm just patient with referees. If a call seems plausible, then I tend to defer. Either way they called this would have been plausible to me.

I would say Iowa by about a field goal, maybe a little more. I wouldn't be surprised to see 5 or even 6. They're good on the road and against the spread on the road. But it is possible Nebraska is slightly favored. Line setters have not been deterred by the record. Iowa is tricky because of their schedule, but they've been getting healthy enough spreads and doing well enough against them that I feel they'll be favored.

FOR f#*k'S SAKE! Reasonable statement IMO. I mean, just because they were 32-3 in the past three years combined (including this one) coming into this game and undefeated this year doesn't mean you deserve to be a top 10 team. They barely beat Purdue, Rutgers, and needed 3 garbage time TDs to make the Indiana game look good (it's neck and neck for 3 quarters). Those are all really good teams, right? Of course they are, that's why MSU out gains their opponents per play by so very little. It would just look funny to do so if those teams were say at the bottom of the conference standings. Those other teams listed in the top ten must be the ones playing those sorts of teams, because they're out gaining their opponents by a ton more. (In all seriousness, don't define what you do by what you think your opponent is. When you go up in the air fighting for a ball against another grown ass man, you made that play. Doesn't matter what you think of the guy. If anything the past two weeks has taught us, it should be this.) Last year tOSU lost to a VT team that ended up 7-6, had an OT win over a 7-6 Penn State, and beat an 8-5 Minny team by only 7 points. You want to go to one of their message boards and explain to them how they weren't really the best team in the nation last year? Those three teams are clearly analogous to the three teams mentioned above just as MSU's 0.2 yards per play differential is clearly analogous to 2014 Ohio State's 2.0 yards per play differential.

It isn't up to us to determine if MSU is or not a Top 10 team. According to the people responsible for determining where teams rank, MSU was #7. It is a top 10 win according to the definition most people use. And college football has spent the last 25 years devising alternative ranking systems because the definition most people use is so flawed.

I've always hated this type of bullsh#t. Usually it's been from other teams' fans. Said team beats a highly ranked team, then said team's fans chant "Overrated." Takes away from the win, doesn't it? If said team was able to beat them, they must have sucked anyway. So said team probably sucks too.Sorry, but that's idiotic. We beat a good top ten team. They were #7. Behind several undefeated teams. They were likely where they should have been. Nebraska did a good job by beating them. Said teams fans says they were overrated weeks and weeks before the game. Other rankings say team overrated. Stats say team overrated. Vegas comes out before game, surprise said fans, say team not supposed to be big bully said team thinks they are. Said team wins, fans can't accept these things. Base too much on belief of other team. Can't appreciate plays made without.

Says a lot about how rarely we were an un-ranked team also. Unfortunately it hasn't been that rare the last 15 years. I did take a nap, maybe they redefined rare while I was sleeping.

FOR f#*k'S SAKE! Reasonable statement IMO. I mean, just because they were 32-3 in the past three years combined (including this one) coming into this game and undefeated this year doesn't mean you deserve to be a top 10 team. They barely beat Purdue, Rutgers, and needed 3 garbage time TDs to make the Indiana game look good (it's neck and neck for 3 quarters). Those are all really good teams, right? Of course they are, that's why MSU out gains their opponents per play by so very little. It would just look funny to do so if those teams were say at the bottom of the conference standings. Those other teams listed in the top ten must be the ones playing those sorts of teams, because they're out gaining their opponents by a ton more. (In all seriousness, don't define what you do by what you think your opponent is. When you go up in the air fighting for a ball against another grown ass man, you made that play. Doesn't matter what you think of the guy. If anything the past two weeks has taught us, it should be this.)

Mike Riley told the players they wouldn't be getting sprinkles on their ice cream if they committed a penalty in the 2nd half. Bah gawd it worked! You stole my joke. Or helped spread it, depending on the royalties.

As I said before this game was even played....bullsh#t. Who have we beat that's better? There is a reason they played so many poor teams so closely, and it's similar to the reason some analytics had this undefeated team dangerously close to being out of the top 25 (that's really hard to do for such a team this late in the season). They're just not a top ten caliber team on either side of the ball (total offense and pass defense, in particular). The political correctness policy may say that scoring margin should not be used in college football, but there is a very good reason it should be: it predicts future success better than any other primary stat in alternate possession sports. Michigan State's margin of victory was pedestrian given its strength of schedule. That's why this line was so low. The record and therefore ranks of these respective teams were a much bigger gap than their metrics. Arizona 2009, despite 5 losses, has a similar profile to this MSU team in terms of differentials (their production relative to their opponents). The big difference between those teams: turnovers, and turnovers have a high degree of randomness to them. While those two may have similar profiles, 2010 Missouri has a better one. They beat their opponents by more, and out gained them by considerably more. They finished 6th in scoring defense, MSU came in ranked 37th. Missouri scoring offense 44th, MSU 48th. (Yes, it is silly to consider a team top ten with those scoring numbers.) 2015 MSU only out gains opponents by 0.3 yards per play (and they didn't outgain us today in that category). 2010 Missouri was at 0.7. (For reference, 2015 Alabama is at 1.5 yards per play, but many griped when they were ranked ahead of undefeated teams like MSU.) Edit: Post Nebraska, MSU out gains opponents by 0.2 yards per play, rank 40th in scoring offense, rank 47th in scoring defense.

Actually, the world does know. The difference between any two athletes, and therefore teams, is several multiples less than the hype machines make it sound.

I'm all for making him a mascot.

Did you put it in the inbox or outbox?

That article is why Vegas has so many tall buildings. Never use the word 'can' in this context. It makes you look stupid. Anybody can win simply because the game exists. It may just not be probable. SURPRISE!

Here's the thing with top ten lists: just because you rank ten, that doesn't mean all ten rank. But, yes, winning out has always been a viable option.

Iowa is just as, or maybe even more overrated than MSU. I still cheered for them to win today. Their loss will be all the more sweeter coming later in the year.

So is the neighbors cat. I ignored it.

So no silly letters were needed and all someone had to do was win a very winnable football game? Never would have guessed.

Listening to those guys is why people think Cook is a first rounder. Watch the games and think for yourselves. As to talent question, championships no, garbage we play against yes.

They knew nothing we hadn't discussed on this forum already.

As I said before this game was even played....bullsh#t.

Defenses are defined by their talent, offenses by their scheme.

As I've been saying for a long time, this was not a top ten 10. And heads up to those chickenhawks, they're not one, either.

Forced call

Ride that horse

Everyone knows you can't run the ball 2 or 3 plays in a row. It's impossible. 2nd and 5, after gaining 5 yards on a 1st down run play, has to be a pass play. I mean, just think what would happen if we ran it for 5 yards again....that would be a first down without a pass. Can't have that. And now you know why aiming for an arbitrary 50/50 ratio is stupid.