T1B

Louisville usually struggles with teams who have good D's and who also can keep Louisville's offense off the field. If you're going to play them in a high scoring game then you more than likely going to lose. Their offense is pretty damn good.

Louisville’s defense might not be “horrid” but it gave up 540 yards. Both teams’ schedules are littered with mediocre teams. Hopefully Rutgers knocks them off next week, then WVU bitch-slaps Rutgers at season’s end.

MuchoBulls wrote:Louisville usually struggles with teams who have good D's and who also can keep Louisville's offense off the field. If you're going to play them in a high scoring game then you more than likely going to lose. Their offense is pretty damn good.

Mucho, you have my respect, but right now you are hitting the conference homer card a little too hard. Unless we were watching two NFL offenses I don't see how either of those teams were much more than a couple of WAC teams. The lack of defense was beyond sickening. Neither deserves a top 10 ranking and it shows in the box score. Good offense never beats good defense and both these guys are no exception. As a Texas fan I had to chuckle at what I saw out of both teams defenses. I honestly think Baylor has a better defense than both teams. My honest opinion is that Oklahoma would beat both teams and they are not an elite team this year.

WVU will get their stats against just about anyone.

Vito Corleone wrote:Mucho, you have my respect, but right now you are hitting the conference homer card a little too hard. Unless we were watching two NFL offenses I don't see how either of those teams were much more than a couple of WAC teams. The lack of defense was beyond sickening. Neither deserves a top 10 ranking and it shows in the box score. Good offense never beats good defense and both these guys are no exception. As a Texas fan I had to chuckle at what I saw out of both teams defenses. I honestly think Baylor has a better defense than both teams. My honest opinion is that Oklahoma would beat both teams and they are not an elite team this year.

Then let's hope Texas and Louisville play in a BCS game. Your points are all valid. I like a team with who can play D just as much as the rest of you, but there are going to be times when an opposing team can do a little bit more damage. Louisville's D is by no means great, but their offense more than makes up for that.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:WVU will get their stats against just about anyone.

BYU always got their stats when they played elite teams, once in a blue moon they beat a highly ranked opponent. But BYU almost always lost and usually lost big. WVU is a one dimentional running team, do you really think they could run on Michigan or Texas? I think they would lost to both those teams by 50 pts. Why? Because they are the top 2 run defenses in the nation and both have high powered offenses.

Slaton is a good player who will probably end up in the NFL, but it was very appearant that he has been feasting on crappy defenses all year. He is no where near the player AD is. Of everyone I watched last night the two I was most impressed with were the two Louisville receivers. Those kids are players and would shine in any conference. Other than that I came away from that game thinking that if either coach was to leave the big least for a better conference they better find a high quality DC or they are going to be no better than Mike Leach.

MuchoBulls wrote:

Vito Corleone wrote:Mucho, you have my respect, but right now you are hitting the conference homer card a little too hard. Unless we were watching two NFL offenses I don't see how either of those teams were much more than a couple of WAC teams. The lack of defense was beyond sickening. Neither deserves a top 10 ranking and it shows in the box score. Good offense never beats good defense and both these guys are no exception. As a Texas fan I had to chuckle at what I saw out of both teams defenses. I honestly think Baylor has a better defense than both teams. My honest opinion is that Oklahoma would beat both teams and they are not an elite team this year.

Then let's hope Texas and Louisville play in a BCS game. Your points are all valid. I like a team with who can play D just as much as the rest of you, but there are going to be times when an opposing team can do a little bit more damage. Louisville's D is by no means great, but their offense more than makes up for that.

I fully admit that Louisvilles passing game would give Texas fits, but it is pretty hard to get a pass off when your oline can't block. Broam was getting some pretty good heat from WV. Can you imagine what would happen when they faced the Texas D line? I would see that game going much like the Texas Tech game went. I personally would be pissed if Texas had to play Louisville cause a bowl win would mean little to voters who would suddenly realize that Louisville is not the great team they were given credit for before the game.

Vito Corleone wrote:BYU always got their stats when they played elite teams, once in a blue moon they beat a highly ranked opponent. But BYU almost always lost and usually lost big. WVU is a one dimentional running team, do you really think they could run on Michigan or Texas? I think they would lost to both those teams by 50 pts. Why? Because they are the top 2 run defenses in the nation and both have high powered offenses.

I wasn't trying to make the connection that monster stats = Ws, just responding to Goobs' take about how many yards Louisville gave up to WVU as not necessarily being a measure of horrid defense.

Now, I'm not saying they played well defensively, obviously they did not. My point is that I don't think many teams WOULD play real well defensively against WVU. WVU has the players, but they also have the system designed to rack up mucho yardage and points. Just ask the 2005 Georgia Bulldogs what they think on the matter.

Yes - WVU is scheme-rich. Their defense is probably too sophisticated for their players, or at least it is beyond the level of discipline that they've been able to instill.

One caveat to all this...

Texas just gave up 519 passing yards and 31 points to a team which got crushed at home by Missouri and who even managed to get utterly destroyed by...Colorado!! So, let's not all assume that Texas' D would shut down or even slow down Louisville.

I'm thinking...not. Louisville would throw all day long over Texas, or at least whenever their offense was on the field, which wouldn't be often.

Mgo, I usually tend to agree with you on most of the minutiae here but on this point you're wrong...

Their defense isn't special, but it isn't horrid

Yeah, it's downright horrid. They can't tackle. They can't stay in gaps. They can't manage to avoid getting blown back by lead blockers or ball carriers even if they luck into being in the right gaps. They can't stay within ten yards of receivers.

Basically, they're feeble and helpless. Lotsa nice "Predator" hairdos though.

After seeing what a hugely overrated WVU did to Louisville's defense I'm reasonably certain that a team like Texas, OSU, Cal or even Arkansas could simply run on them every play and keep Louisville's offense off the field. The clock would be spinning so fast that the game would be over in two hours.

I also think that any team with some athletes on defense could pressure Brohm and his receivers into a few picks and/or fumbles. WVU really doesn't have any, so they couldn't.

Can't disagree though with this sage piece of football strategy...

They just have to score more than the other guy...

Yup, outscoring the other team remains the best strategy ever invented for winning football games. Soccer games too, even!

:-)

Lotsa nice "Predator" hairdos though.

Heh heh.

Again, I don't think WVU's offense is overrated...they definitely have an offense that can get numbers and score points. Their issue lies on the defensive side of the ball.

As for the idea that a team with a strong OL could line up and crack Louisville in the mug with the run, I'd agree. I think Rutgers will do exactly that.

W. Virginia looked like they were running "no tackling" blocking scheme drills against Louisville's run defense.

I can only imagine how scary it'd look if Louisville's defense had to face a big, strong, fast offense that's actually been proving themselves against real teams...

Van wrote:One caveat to all this...

Texas just gave up 519 passing yards and 31 points to a team which got crushed at home by Missouri and who even managed to get utterly destroyed by...Colorado!! So, let's not all assume that Texas' D would shut down or even slow down Louisville.

I'm thinking...not. Louisville would throw all day long over Texas, or at least whenever their offense was on the field, which wouldn't be often.

You should have paid closer attention to the 2nd half, tech didn't do squat in the 2nd half. I fully admit the Texas secondary has been lit up this year, but that does not mean that Louisville would. Keep in mind that Broam was running for his life against a crappy WV dline. What do you think will happen when he faced the Texas dline? If Texas played Louisville they would move the ball from 20 to 20 hell they probably up up 20 to 30 pts, like Tech did, but Texas would pretty much score on every possession and the final score would look something like the Baylor score. 63 - 30.

Also keep in mind that Texas is pretty banged up in the secondary and there is a good chance that come bowl time all those injuries will be healed and ready to go.

You should have paid closer attention to the 2nd half, tech didn't do squat in the 2nd half.

They did plenty in the first half though, didn't they?

Football games are comprised of two halves and sixty minutes. What you do in the first half counts on the scoreboard just as much as what you do in the second half.

519 yards and 31 points, Vito. Taco Tech. There's no way to spin that one. Taco Tech sucks out loud this season and still their offense totally rolled your defense.

I fully admit the Texas secondary has been lit up this year, but that does not mean that Louisville would.

Yeah, it pretty much does mean exactly that, or worse.

Keep in mind that Broam was running for his life against a crappy WV dline.

Huh? Brohm was just sitting there all fuggen night throwing thirty yard seam patterns down the middle of the field to WIDE open receivers. He was as comfortable as could be back there in the pocket.

In the same way the WVU rushing game looked like they were running "no contact" drills so too did the Louisville passing game vs the WVU defense.

What do you think will happen when he faced the Texas dline?

Pretty much the same thing that happened when the Texas D Line was confronted with the Texas Tech offense: fuckloads of yards and points...as many as their limited time on the field would allow.

The Texas salvation would come via their offense. The Texas offense would control the ball and the clock to such an extent that the Louisville offense would rarely see the field and when they did see the field they'd be too pressured to score on every possession.

If Texas played Louisville they would move the ball from 20 to 20 hell they probably up up 20 to 30 pts, like Tech did, but Texas would pretty much score on every possession and the final score would look something like the Baylor score. 63 - 30.

I agree, in principle. The Texas offense would thoroughly dominate the clock though and Louisville's offense is much better than Baylor's so I don't think the combined total/margin of victory would be nearly that high. I'm thinking more along the lines of 35-21.

Also keep in mind that Texas is pretty banged up in the secondary and there is a good chance that come bowl time all those injuries will be healed and ready to go.

Or, they won't. There's also a good chance that they'll get even more banged up as the season progresses. Regardless, they've shown little to no ability this season to defend against the pass.

I wouldn't count on the layoff being your salvation there, Vito. USC struggled with the exact same injuries issue all last season and damn skippy if it didn't finally catch up to us against you guys in our bowl game. We also thought we might get healthy with the long layoff but it didn't work out that way. Everybody didn't come back, first of all. Secondly, you still need continuity and experience together. You need a unit to play together and grow together, for a decent amount of time. At worst, Texas won't see the injury issue resolved at all and it could get even more serious down the road. At best, they won't have any continuity.

Either way, they're going to continue to be weak against a good pass offense.

If it ends up being OSU and Louisville in the BCS Championship, I hope that new scoreboard in Arizona has room for triple digits.

Both defenses in that game were h-o-r-r-i-b-l-e

First off Tech always puts up big yardage when they play Texas, we are their Super Bowl, I knew we would give up huge chunks of yardage cause our defense is predicated on keeping the receivers in front. The big difference is all the yardage gained after the catch, that is what the Texas defense usually doesn't give up and that is what happened in the 1st half. The 2nd half is usually a result of halftime adjustments and as I said, Tech didn't do squat in the 2nd half.

I could care less if a team puts up 500+ yards of offense if I know they won't get into the endzone. And Chizik's defenses have done a pretty damn good job of keeping teams out of the endzone that is why we are giving up only 16.3 pts per game.

If as you say Louisville would only score 21 pts I would be very pleased, cause I know that their defense is the suck, and Texas would break 50 by the 3rd quarter. Is there anything about their defense that would suggest they could stop a balanced attack?

Van wrote:Can't disagree though with this sage piece of football strategy...

They just have to score more than the other guy...

Yup, outscoring the other team remains the best strategy ever invented for winning football games. Soccer games too, even!

:-)

You know what I meant, as it applies to Louisville's heavy reliance upon offensive production in order to "balance out" their poor defense...ass.

Actually, I'd love to expound, but Fridays are busy work days for me.

I hate it when work interferes with my screw-off time.

Nope. The Louisville D couldn't stop or even slow down any top level college offense. The Texas offense would run roughshod ('sup, Mgo and Jimma... :-) ) over the Louisville defense.

Thing is, Texas isn't that explosive this season on offense. Unless they're playing scrimmages against N. Texas, Sam Houston St, Rice or Baylor they're just not that dominant of any offense this season.

Their D is only giving up 16 points a game when you average out the entire season, but that's including all their cupcakes. That's why seasonal statistics and national statistical rankings in CF are so often total bullshit. Factor in only the decent offenses Texas has played and their stats don't look nearly so good, do they?

OSU rolled 'em. Nebraska was all over 'em. Taco destroyed 'em.

As for Texas being A&M's Super Bowl, hey, that's no excuse. Texas would also be Louisville's Super Bowl too and let's face it, when you're OSU, Texas, USC, ND or a handful of other teams in the country every single game you play is the other team's Super Bowl.

USC's been dealing with it now for four straight seasons, walking that tightrope every week. It simply comes with the territory.

Mgo, don't sweat it. You just happened to burp up my wife's all time least favorite TV Analyst cliche, so often heard whenever they run down their "Keys To Victory"...

As a Sacramento Kings fan in particular she's had to see this one way too often, and it just drives her fucking insane...

"Key To Victory #1: Sacramento will have to outscore the other team..."

She's basically ready to swear off all men as completely hopeless retards whenever she hears that cliche...

It's "rough shot."

Two words.

Cicero out front told me.

And it would be funny if either of those teams brought that garbageball Out West.

Van wrote:Mgo, don't sweat it. You just happened to burp up my wife's all time least favorite TV Analyst cliche, so often heard whenever they run down their "Keys To Victory"...

Right, but I meant it in a more specific way as it applies to Louisville's strengths/weaknesses. But it's cool, I'm sure your wife knows more about college footabll than I.

But yeah, real life interferences sometimes cause me to go sissyhuskers up in here.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Vito Corleone wrote:BYU always got their stats when they played elite teams, once in a blue moon they beat a highly ranked opponent. But BYU almost always lost and usually lost big. WVU is a one dimentional running team, do you really think they could run on Michigan or Texas? I think they would lost to both those teams by 50 pts. Why? Because they are the top 2 run defenses in the nation and both have high powered offenses.

I wasn't trying to make the connection that monster stats = Ws, just responding to Goobs' take about how many yards Louisville gave up to WVU as not necessarily being a measure of horrid defense.

WVU got 80 yards more in total yards than the average they had coming in. An average built playing mostly mediocre teams. Maybe not horrid, but definitely not good.

MuchoBulls wrote:

Vito Corleone wrote:Mucho, you have my respect, but right now you are hitting the conference homer card a little too hard. Unless we were watching two NFL offenses I don't see how either of those teams were much more than a couple of WAC teams. The lack of defense was beyond sickening. Neither deserves a top 10 ranking and it shows in the box score. Good offense never beats good defense and both these guys are no exception. As a Texas fan I had to chuckle at what I saw out of both teams defenses. I honestly think Baylor has a better defense than both teams. My honest opinion is that Oklahoma would beat both teams and they are not an elite team this year.

Then let's hope Texas and Louisville play in a BCS game. Your points are all valid. I like a team with who can play D just as much as the rest of you, but there are going to be times when an opposing team can do a little bit more damage. Louisville's D is by no means great, but their offense more than makes up for that.

Unless Louisville runs the table and is the benefactor of the final BCS poll, they will play either the ACC champ in the Orange Bowl (a game in which Louisville should be favored) or the SEC champ (or SEC runner-up, if the SEC champ plays in the BCS championship game) in the Sugar Bowl. Boise State is all but assured of being in the BCS, and the Sugar and Orange Bowls will leave them to the Fiesta, which has the last pick.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Unless Louisville runs the table and is the benefactor of the final BCS poll, they will play either the ACC champ in the Orange Bowl (a game in which Louisville should be favored) or the SEC champ (or SEC runner-up, if the SEC champ plays in the BCS championship game) in the Sugar Bowl. Boise State is all but assured of being in the BCS, and the Sugar and Orange Bowls will leave them to the Fiesta, which has the last pick.

But it won't matter to the critics who they beat, or how they beat them.

There will always be a way to discredit the Big East teams.

Remember?

When WVU pounded the SEC's best team last year, it didn't matter, because Georgia didn't "show up for the game" because they were "unhappy to be there."

Exactly.

Sometimes the truth hurts. Besides, Georgia really wasn't that great last year anyway.

The reason we can always discredit Big East teams is because they leave us no other choice, all year long.

Terry, I gotta say, I always enjoy your bowl game break downs. You always have all the possible permutations down pat. I almost feel like I should call you up to check all the possibilities before I plan a vaction...or even just make a sammich.

I'm sitting there at some restuarant, looking over a menu that's just way too large and varied for my gluttonous food lust...

"Gotta call Terry. He'll know what I should get, and why, and why not."

(Don't take this as a jab, either. I'm serious. I love your detailed break downs...)

Van wrote:Exactly.

Sometimes the truth hurts. Besides, Georgia really wasn't that great last year anyway.

Nah. Your opinion doesn't become some sort of universal truth because you say so.

The SEC champ is going to be a damn fine team...any given year.

Even with their "horrid" D, WVU crushed UGA by running rough shat all over 'em. There's no discrediting that very real fact regardless of how much you want to try and spin or downplay it.

Van, no offense taken, but I do have an issue with this:

Mgo wrote:[Georgia was] "unhappy to be there."

IIRC, you posted something pretty similar to that not too long ago. But then you posted . . .

Van wrote:Georgia really wasn't that great last year anyway.

So which was it? If Georgia "really wasn't that great", one would think that they would have been happy about the Sugar Bowl, which was pretty much their best-case option.

In any event, I'm never really sure how much you can tell from a bowl game for two reasons . . .

1. The disconnect from the regular season, which, in the case of BCS teams, is 5-6 weeks.
2. The fact that every bowl game other than the national championship game is a glorified consolation game.

Uh ohh...

Vannie, time to fire up that blender...

This should be fun.

Van wrote:Nope. The Louisville D couldn't stop or even slow down any top level college offense. The Texas offense would run roughshod ('sup, Mgo and Jimma... :-) ) over the Louisville defense.

Thing is, Texas isn't that explosive this season on offense. Unless they're playing scrimmages against N. Texas, Sam Houston St, Rice or Baylor they're just not that dominant of any offense this season.

Texas put up 28 on a very good Oklahoma D. Not to mention they are again in the top 10 scoring offenses in the country. Now before you say that it was a stat built on cupcakes, keep in mind that Louisville D is somewhere between Rice and Baylor in the the cupcake department.

Their D is only giving up 16 points a game when you average out the entire season, but that's including all their cupcakes. That's why seasonal statistics and national statistical rankings in CF are so often total bullshit. Factor in only the decent offenses Texas has played and their stats don't look nearly so good, do they?

OSU rolled 'em. Nebraska was all over 'em. Taco destroyed 'em.

You can say that about every team, because every team plays lots of cupcakes. It is also important to note that when Texas plays the cupcakes they usually call off the dogs by the beginning of the 3rd quarter. Mack normally goes to a very conservative run offense with the 2nd and 3rd team. If you look at Jevan Snead's individual stats you will se a guy who has only attempted about 18 passes and most of those happened in the first 3 games of the season. Texas does not try to pad their offensive stats against over matched opponents even though sometimes I wish he would.

As for Texas being A&M's Super Bowl, hey, that's no excuse. Texas would also be Louisville's Super Bowl too and let's face it, when you're OSU, Texas, USC, ND or a handful of other teams in the country every single game you play is the other team's Super Bowl.

USC's been dealing with it now for four straight seasons, walking that tightrope every week. It simply comes with the territory.

I agree, but you can expect to see a tech squad that will one day lose to Colorado put up a damn good fight against Texas. In one game they under achieve in the other they over achieve. BTW Colorado ain't that bad, they are in a state of flux, once they figure out their system they are going to be pretty salty.

with 4 at large bids I'm hoping that the PAC 10 gets two teams in just so if Texas doesn't get into the championship game they are not stuck playing a WAC team. I would hope the at large bids go this way.

Michigan/tOSU loser to the Rose
2nd place SEC to Orange
Notre Dame to Sugar/Fiesta
Kal/USC loser to Fiesta/Sugar

Terry, being not that great yourself AND being underwhelmed with your opponent, they're not exactly mutually exclusive notions.

I daresay USC met both descriptions last week in Corvallis. Both USC last week and Georgia in the Sugar Bowl looked pretty damned flat and neither team could be called "great".

I'll agree with Mgo that winning the SEC automatically means you're good. No doubt. Still, do ANY of us consider last year's Georgia team to be one of the SEC's better conference champs?

I highly doubt it. That's what I meant when I said Georgia wasn't that great last year. They really...weren't. They were good, sure, but they weren't a great team. I also highly doubt that they were anywhere near as fired up as WVU to play that Sugar Bowl. Just my opinion, but it's one that was shared by all sorts of SEC writers at the time and it sure looked that way on my TV once they lined up and sleep walked through much of the game.

Anyway, this takes the cake...

Mgo wrote:rough shat

How we've gone from a simple fuck up of the spelling of the word "roughshod" (which is the correct spelling) to all these new takes on it...it's that kind of shit that makes this place fun. You just never know when the next thing will pop up...

Van wrote:Terry, being not that great yourself AND being underwhelmed with your opponent, they're not exactly mutually exclusive notions.

Maybe not, but it's funny that no one was saying that about Georgia in '02. A brief trip down memory lane: Georgia was ranked #3 in the final BCS poll in '02, got a Sugar Bowl bid, and wound up playing #14 Florida State (by contrast, West Virginia was ranked #11 to Georgia's #7 in '05).

If Georgia was underwhelmed by their opponent in '05, wouldn't that have applied in '02 as well? You don't hear that about '02 because, and perhaps only because, Georgia won that game.

The idea that Georgia was underwhelmed by their opponent in '05 is an excuse, nothing more. I don't doubt that they were flat for that game, but that's entirely on them.

Vito Corleone wrote:with 4 at large bids I'm hoping that the PAC 10 gets two teams in

Not likely imho, given that USC and Cal still have each other left on the schedule. At a minimum, USC would have to beat ND for that to have any chance at happening.

And even if it does, the Fiesta Bowl has the last pick. I suppose it's possible that the Orange Bowl would take an undefeated Boise State team over a two-loss Pac-10 runner-up, but I would say it's unlikely (especially if USC is the runner-up).

Boise State is in the BCS, regardless, if they finish Top 12, or if they finish Top 16 and ranked ahead of the ACC champ. In all likelihood, the only way they miss the BCS is if they lose a game.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:The idea that Georgia was underwhelmed by their opponent in '05 is an excuse, nothing more.

Yep. It isn't a legitimate excuse, nor does it have any real life significance or application.

We don't have the benefit of getting into the players' heads, so this notion isn't something we can know with absolute certainty.

If anything, I'd actually disagree with the idea, considering UGA could've folded when they were getting blown out in the first half. But they actually made a spirited comeback, only to fall short because they had dug themselves too deep a hole.

The deal is, there's an unwritten agreement in the sports world that the "better team" is established by who actually wins the game on the field. That's what we go by.

WVU beat UGA. Now that, we CAN know with absolute certainty.

They were the better team.

That's all we have to go on, and nothing more.

...and WVU outscored Georgia, which ended up being a key factor in the win!

PSUFAN wrote:

Where are the WVU bandwagon slappies that have been touting them in here all year?

I haven't seen anyone do that. My take has been, let's see how things go before we conclude anything. Do I believe in my hear that a Big East team belongs in the BCS? Not at this point. Is it a physical impossibility? Not at all.

You have to admit, the Big East has been quite interesting this year...and that's coming from a fan who has been very critical of the conference.

I know it wasn't you. Don't remember the thread title, but someone in here was pimping WVU as the next coming based on a Bowl victory last season. They are a solid team, like I said maybe, just maybe, top 15. The Big East blows, there's no denying it.

I heard a solid analogy of Louisville earlier today...Louisville is like a run and gun team in hoops. If/when they're on they can play with anyone, but if the shots aren't falling, goodnight. If the offense is clicking the can hang with most teams, that's a big if. They cannot afford turnovers or empty possessions, not with that D.

The last team to have previously beaten both WVU and Louisville was the Hokies. The Hokies had a solid D that could slow down their gimmicky bullshit enough to outscore them. And if the Hokies could do it, then there are plenty of real teams that can.

Believe the Heupel wrote:

Vito Corleone wrote: Texas put up 28 on a very good Oklahoma D. Not to mention they are again in the top 10 scoring offenses in the country. Now before you say that it was a stat built on cupcakes, keep in mind that Louisville D is somewhere between Rice and Baylor in the the cupcake department.

Weren't you the guy earlier this year crowing about how bad OU's defense was?

Seeing as how OU gave up less than 250 yards and was dealing with five offensive turnovers, I don't think Texas' offense did that great a job scoring 21 points-one of your TDs was off a fumble return.

No I wasn't, I have never said the blOwU defense was bad I did say the DBs were bad and could be had by the Texas receivers. I also said that Texas could dominate the blOwU DTs.