Jump to content

rogue3542

Members
  • Posts

    944
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

rogue3542 last won the day on April 14 2018

rogue3542 had the most liked content!

Reputation

873 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's depressing when I look at other teams' schedules haha!
  2. What can I say, with how stacked the Big Ten East is, Notre Dame's schedule just looks like a cakewalk comparatively. Maybe "joke" is a bridge too far, but it's light years easier than IU's schedule, and there just isn't a game I'm all that excited to see because of the matchup. Wisconsin and Cincinnati are interesting games for other reasons.
  3. I'm sure I'm a bit jaded by the utter brutality of IU's schedule this year, but it just seems that there's not much difficulty there. I grew up Catholic in the region. ND is my second team. I find their schedule incredibly weak considering the flexibility they have in making it. If the ACC is going to give them this and they aren't willing to step out of some of their less traditional games, it's going to be a weak schedule for a team that's ultimate goal is always to go to the CFP. at FSU Toledo Purdue #18 Wisconsin neutral # 8 Cincinnati at Virginia Tech USC #21 UNC Navy at UVA Georgia Tech at Stanford For a blue blood in college football, that's a joke of a schedule, and it's obviously designed to give them the greatest chance possible of going undefeated while sprinkling in a whiff of difficulty.
  4. Notre Dame's schedule has been a joke so far. Edit: their entire schedule is a joke. They barely leave home, and when they do, they aren't exactly tough games.
  5. Call me salty, but I think there's a good chance IU blows Cincy out if he doesn't get ejected. They couldn't do anything before he got ejected; after they immediately march down the field and score. That's cause and effect if I've ever seen it.
  6. My big problem with this is that the whole intent of the rule has been subverted and is completely changing the complexion of games, in the case of the OSU vs Minnesota game, it was criminal not to call that and near confirmation of the bias nearly all Big Ten fans know Ohio State receives. There was helmet to helmet contact with the McFadden play, but it was glancing, both players were moved into each other, and there was no launching or intent to punish the offensive player. The result; however, is we have an after the fact review on a play that literally no one even smelled targeting on removing IU's best defensive player early in the game; just doesn't smell right. If you're nitpicking on a glancing blow, it shouldn't be called. Contrast that with the other hit. Clear intent to harm and launched into the blindside of the receiver gunning for the helmet - literally knocked the Minnesota player out. Not only did they not call targeting, they didn't even review for it. Instead, they review for a fumble and reward the ball to Ohio State. Targeting is supposed to protect players from head injuries - the two plays above illustrate that it is utterly failing due to incompetence from officials. If you want to call the penalty on McFadden, fine, I guess there's someway you can justify it within the rule set (though honestly, I think we're looking for penalties at this point), but to get ejected over that is just asinine. The fact that the OSU player was not ejected is, in my opinion, equally as bad if not worse. He was clearly looking to hurt Minnesota's wide receiver, and he succeeded. It's exactly the type of play the targeting rule was invented to get rid of, and the OSU player deserved to be ejected for it.
  7. Rivals. Rivals is the board you are looking for. We deal in reality here. If you say you're done, then why are you still here?
  8. Okay...fair enough, but we'd still be getting votes.
  9. If we were competitive at Iowa I think we are still in the top 25. Losing that game the way we did is why.
  10. According to Big Ten Officials, this is targeting: And this is Not: Discuss
  11. https://youtu.be/Cm2uyCsaJXc Finally saw the replay. I don't know how you call this. Helmets contacted, but it doesn't meet any of the other criteria. How does McFadden even avoid it? Ridder moved right into his path, and McFadden was moved into Ridder's path. Would have totally missed him otherwise.
  12. No offense, but this is ridiculous. Top ten team with the hope of being the first G5 team in the playoff is what you are looking for, and even then, I think it's more of a subconscious "give the benefit of the doubt" to the "better" team and preserving Cincinnati's chances for the playoff rather than an active agenda.
  13. I don't think it's that hard, either. Targeting 1 is akin to a facemask, roughing the passer, etc. Targeting 2 is acting with malice/intent and results in ejection. Honestly, I think they need to change this now, not wait until next season.
  14. The announcers are now questioning how bad the officiating is. You know it's a special kind of bad if that's happening.
  15. The only question remaining about the officiating is how much the SEC paid this crew. I actually kind of want PSU to lose, but the officiating is exceptionally one sided.
×
×
  • Create New...