1. Notre Dame
2. West Virginia will lose 2 conference games
3. LSU Games @Florida,@Auburn could end up with 3 conf losses
Sleeper Overrated: Nebraska, after all, they are Back.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1a636/1a63642b228b5f224293c7a14a623c933f9ae81b" alt="Rolling Eyes :meds:"
Moderators: 88BuckeyeGrad, Left Seater, buckeye_in_sc
I'll admit that portions of the media sometimes overrate ND, but ESPN historically has been anything but a watercarrier for ND. For years ESPN has been leading the drumbeat about college football has passed ND by, ND needs to join a conference, etc., etc. Not to mention that it was ESPN who implied that Willingham's firing was racially motivated, and it was ESPN who predicted that ND would start the season 0-6. Also, of course, ND's glory days are prior to the start of ESPN, and ESPN is notorious for thinking that anything that happened prior to its existence doesn't matter. But don't let facts get in the way of a good anti-ND diatribe. :wink:Adelpiero wrote:We all know ESPN and the tard bunch will be lackeys for Notre Dame,
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
Here is WVU's Big East schedule for 2006:Adelpiero wrote:2. West Virginia will lose 2 conference games
And possibly for the BCS National Championship Game. :wink:MuchoBulls wrote:WVU is going to be a darkhorse contender for the Fiesta Bowl.
So, you're saying that IF you win a national championship next year, you won't be overrated?Terry in Crapchester wrote: As for ND being overrated, we'll certainly be ranked highly entering next season, and for that matter that should be expected. And I believe that we could, not necessarily will but certainly could, contend for a national championship. If we accomplish that, by definition we won't be overrated.
Uhh, not exactly.JayDuck wrote:So, you're saying that IF you win a national championship next year, you won't be overrated?Terry in Crapchester wrote: As for ND being overrated, we'll certainly be ranked highly entering next season, and for that matter that should be expected. And I believe that we could, not necessarily will but certainly could, contend for a national championship. If we accomplish that, by definition we won't be overrated.
Thanks for clearing that up, Marcus
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
That's what I meant. I was too lazy to type it out. :wink:L45B wrote:And possibly for the BCS National Championship Game. :wink:
I know it's early, but I haven't heard anyone yet say anything about ND being a #1. Consensus #1 overrated?JayDuck wrote:Notre Dame is being talked about as a possible #1 next year? They have to be the consensous #1 Overated team. 2 losses again, at best, for them.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
Beano said ND vs. OSU/Texas winner in the BCS Championship game with ND winning it all. By stating this, Beano is ranking them in the top 3, if not #1.Terry in Crapchester wrote:I know it's early, but I haven't heard anyone yet say anything about ND being a #1. Consensus #1 overrated?Wouldn't it make more sense to see where ND is ranked before making such a statement?
Goober McTuber wrote:One last post...
Lendal's quote in the paper a few days ago speaks volumes.Okay...
It's not like we lost them all due to their football eligibility being up...
Smartass.
M Club wrote:I've seen Phantom Holding Calls ruin a 7-5 team's undefeated season.
I see you left out the "maybe" part of my quote, as well as the rest.JayDuck wrote:Notre Dame doesn't have undefeated talent, and Charlie Weis has not created the Heavens and the Earth, yet.Terry in Crapchester wrote:I'm looking at it as a homer
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
For that matter, you could say the same thing about ND's 1988 team. There's more overall talent on this team than there was on the '88 team (albeit less depth at running back, and the '88 team probably had more talent in the secondary). And this team won't have to beat a team ranked #1 (Miami), a team ranked #2 (USC) and a team ranked #3 (Michigan) each at the time ND played them.Believe the Heupel wrote:If Oklahoma can go 13-0 with the talent on the 2000 squad, Notre Dame can go 13-0 with the talent currently on their roster. Overall talent level is much higher, and Notre Dame isn't going to have to beat top-5 Kansas State, Texas, and Nebraska back-to-back-to-back.
All it takes is some breaks falling your way and a severe ass-whipping of a traditional rival.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
Fasano can petition for a fifth year, I don't know whether he's made up his mind on that or not. Powers-Neal was benched mid-season following a DUI arrest, so his departure doesn't hurt us drastically.Shoalzie wrote:I'd hate to say it but Notre Dame is going to be really good next year considering Quinn is staying around for his senior year. Walker is only going to be a junior and there's Samardzija (had to look up the spelling) of course. They lose a good tight end in Fasano and their power back, Powers-Neal and two solid linebackers, Hoyte and Mays. Plus, their kicker DJ Fitzpatrick graduates. Weis will have pretty much the same team coming back. I wouldn't be shocked to see them in the BCS again but I don't think I can call them a title contender. They have only two tough road games...MSU and USC. If they get through Tech, Penn State, Michigan and Michigan State at 4-0, we'll know if they're for real or not. That is probably the toughest part of their schedule until they go visit USC on the last week of the season.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
Nice reset, Terry. I'm sure you didn't forget that they beat #3 West Virginia as well. :wink:Terry in Crapchester wrote:For that matter, you could say the same thing about ND's 1988 team. There's more overall talent on this team than there was on the '88 team (albeit less depth at running back, and the '88 team probably had more talent in the secondary). And this team won't have to beat a team ranked #1 (Miami), a team ranked #2 (USC) and a team ranked #3 (Michigan) each at the time ND played them.
True, but that was a bowl game; the others were regular-season games. If ND gets through next year undefeated, they'll most likely be facing a team ranked higher than 3 in their bowl game.L45B wrote:Nice reset, Terry. I'm sure you didn't forget that they beat #3 West Virginia as well. :wink:Terry in Crapchester wrote:For that matter, you could say the same thing about ND's 1988 team. There's more overall talent on this team than there was on the '88 team (albeit less depth at running back, and the '88 team probably had more talent in the secondary). And this team won't have to beat a team ranked #1 (Miami), a team ranked #2 (USC) and a team ranked #3 (Michigan) each at the time ND played them.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.