GarySJ

when was Tulane in the SEC?

Until 1965. Georgia Tech also used to be an SEC member too, and left about the same time.

Bulldoug, I disagree on a couple points:

5.  Stop the run make the Pitt O one dimensional.

If you mean one-dimensional in terms of passing all the time, that's just what we DON'T want. With Tyler Palko, they're actually good at throwing the ball. Just review the second half of the Rutgers game or the last drive of the Ohio game. If Pitt had called plays like that the whole season, they'd probably be 5-1 right now.

But unfortunately for Pitt, their new coaching staff is obsessed on establishing a power running game, even though their personnel is completely wrong for it. The Pitt offense doesn't concern me as long as they're trying to pound the ball with their injured running backs behind their mediocre offensive line. It's when Pitt gets behind, and game circumstances force the offense into the correct strategy, that they become dangerous.

6.  Pressure Palko all day long.  Royals & T.Jones must have strong preformances.  Would prefer to pressure w/4 but if Nicholas must blitz, send him.

I'm not so sure about blitzing Palko. When Pitt gets behind and starts passing the ball, it's all three-step drop/quick ins and outs and slants. Watch the second half of the Rutgers game, or the last drive of the Ohio game. You're not going to get to Palko in three steps, so it's wasteful to commit extra guys to a pass rush. Rush 4 or maybe even 3, and focus on short pass coverage. I realize that this puts pressure on the defensive backs to cover Greg Lee straight up. But that's a gamble we can live with, because the offensive braintrust at Pitt is too risk-averse to try exploiting it with a lot of deep balls.

......i'm rambling now.

Actually, we've all been rambling for quite some time. Anyway, we have a game this week, so I'm done with this topic.

Knight Light, you're not listening to me. For the third and final time, those are not FOOTBALL-SPECIFIC revenues, which is what the survey lists.

most sports fans? what do you have to back that up?

Well, I could point to an ESPN2 poll, in which classic uniforms won pretty decisively over new ones: http://espn.go.com/page2/s/bracket/bestuniform/round5.html

Appropriately enough, the only "modern" look that did well, the pukey Denver Broncos, was found to be the result of ballot box stuffing. See http://espn.go.com/page2/s/hruby/031021.html

GQ's list of the best and worst almost exclusively puts classic looks in the best category: http://sev.prnewswire.com/magazines/20041018/NYM19918102004-1.html

Plenty of teams have scrapped "modern" looks to go back to "old", to the delight of fans: NY Islanders (remember the "Groton sea captain"?), SA Spurs, Phillies, NJ Nets, NY Jets, NY Giants, Detroit Pistons are a few that come to mind. The list of teams who had the good sense not to change in the first place is much longer.

Go to fan boards for any team in any sport, and ask their fan base if they want to keep the current look or change. If the team has any history, fan base, or success, the majority will not want to change the look. Hell, go to the Pitt board where most of their fans want to bring back the "script Pitt" helmets of days gone by.

So I'll stand by my assertion.

No, it's still very mythical. The official NCAA Record Book does not acknowledge any I-A national champions.

They look fine.........................................if this was 1974!

There's nothing remotely 1974 about that look. A 70s uniform would wide stripes all over the helmet, pants, and sleeves. It would have mustard yellow instead of gold, and wouldn't use a lettering font like that. Check some of the uniform histories at ssur.org and you'll see what I mean.

The numbers in that pic are atrocious.

"Atrocious" is a bit much, especially considering some of the fonts that are out there. At least they're legible, which is more than you can say for some teams.

The USF on the sleeves is obnoxiously huge and "boxy".

It can be made smaller. As for "boxy", the emblem is based on the official university logo. Take it up with the front office.

Nothing about that uniform says "fast" or "confidence" or "we're gonna kick your ass"

Uh-huh. But armpit spikes and Iowa Barnstormer wings do?

Actually, jerseys like Maryland and Missouri say either (a) "we're a historical loser in football that prostituted ourselves to a shoe company that's using us as test-marketing for designs they hope to pitch to bigger schools later on", or ( "the athletic department is hopelessly in the red, and are hoping to scrape some cash together through jersey sales."

But hey, there's no accounting for taste. You like gaudy, great. But I, and most sports fans, prefer traditional to modern. The 1970s Houston Astros uniforms were once "modern."

We need to ban all threads that complain about people complaining about other threads.

I was reading in the paper that the Sugar Bowl has the last pick in the BCS rotation -- thus making it very very likely -- almost certain that the Big East Champ will play in the Sugar Bowl.

Yes and no. The Sugar Bowl does have the last pick in the rotation this year. But they automatically get the SEC champ as their "anchor team", so they only have to pick one team. If the Fiesta (Big XII) or Orange (ACC) loses its anchor team to the national title game; they'd have to pick two teams: one to replace the team it lost (which they'd pick first) and an opponent (which they'd pick last).

For example, if the Fiesta Bowl loses its anchor team (Big XII champ Texas) to the national title game, the selection order would go like this:

Fiesta (1st pick for losing their anchor team)

Orange (next in line)

Sugar (next in line)

Fiesta

Orange (automatically gets ACC champ)

Sugar (automatically gets SEC champ)

So the Fiesta would draw the short straw, since they have to pick two replacement teams, and the other games only have to pick one.

So it's not a given that the Big East champ will go to Atlanta. I still think, however, that the Sugar may volunteer (no pun intended) to take the Big East champ.

The only problem with that is that the uniforms were UGLY in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

What's wrong with them? They're simple, classic, feature the team and school name prominently, are easy to read, and don't have "armpit spikes" or other bad design ideas.

That may be, but the figures given were for football-specific revenue only. Corporate sponsor deals wouldn't fall into that category.

#55 USF is not coached by Dave Wannstedt.

Oh, and just for fun, here's my idea of what a retro Bulls football uniform might look like:

I hate "armpit spikes." In fact, most of these new designs, with the random vertical and horizontal lines all over the place, ought to be taken out back and burned. They scream "XFL."

In fact, that Maryland photo is a great example of the fashion disaster that college football has become. It looks like a photo of an Iowa Barnstormers game, but the team helmets got stolen so they had to borrow some from a local high school.

The colors don't match, the patterns don't match, the lettering doesn't match. The helmet doesn't have the yellow trim that every other part of the uniform does. It's hideous.

It's very simple: if you're going to have modern uniforms, have modern helmets. If you're going to have classic helmets, have classic uniforms. Mixing and matching them is like wearing brown pants and a blue jacket.

Anyway, here's what the USF uniform should look like:

Why should it look like that? Because that's what it looked like in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

College football is all about tradition. Appropriately, the best college football uniforms are the ones that never change. Michigan, Texas, Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Nebraska, Southern Cal, Penn State, Texas A&M. USF had a chance to have a permanent look for its football team, just by keeping the unique look they used from 97-04. Sadly, they threw it away.

We don't really know how good either of these teams is. UConn's played a lot of weak teams, and Syracuse has played strong ones. I expect a close game. But if one team blows out the other, it could throw a wrench into perceived notions of how the Big East race will shake out.

And I keep saying this but it doesn't seem to be catching on that we are not a good road team, especially with PJ at Qb.  He gets nervous and the whole team feeds off of it.

Yeah, but the road games so far were in State College and Miami. Most teams go 0-2 on that swing. The remaining USF road games, with the possible exception of Syracuse, will not pose that type of challenge. PJ did fine at TCU and UAB last year.

USF's road record, when playing teams of its own caliber, hasn't been bad. 9-13 vs I-A teams is respectable, especially considering that USF was a heavy underdog in a lot of those games (Oklahoma, Alabama, Miami, Penn State, etc.)

Woolard will get it done. In the short time he's been here he's gotten series with Miami and North Carolina, plus the FIU and FAMU games. Supposedly Indiana is in the works as well.

I would imagine UCF would implement 11 man fronts to stop Williams ...

UTEP tried that. Didn't work.

According to an old SP Times story

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/20/Sports/_I_can_beat_this_.shtml

If (Mosley's recovery) continues, he could seek a medical redshirt for next season (05-06), if necessary, and play his senior season as late as 2006-07.

This implies that he used his freebie redshirt on the 04-05 season. And I should correct myself -- I'm not 100% certain that you have to do paperwork. You may be able to just not play, and come back for your fifth year.

Let's go through this calculation....per the Instutitutional website, follow link http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/Search.asp

While you're there, check the revenue/expense figures for all the Florida football schools. They're wildly inconsistent:

UF: $42M revenues, $12M expenses

FSU: $18M revenues, $9M expenses

UM: $23M revenues, $14M expenses

USF: $5.2M revenues, $5M expenses

UCF: $1.7M revenues, $5M expenses

FAU: $0.6M revenues, $1.8M expenses

FIU: $4.7M revenes, $2.8M expenses

Does anyone really think UF football had higher gross revenue than FSU and Miami combined? Or that FIU grossed three times as much as UCF? (This is for the 03-04 school year.)

It's clear to me that schools have some flexibility in categorizing their revenue for purposes of this report. And since it's a Title IX report, schools have to make it look like they're spending money equitably on football and on unprofitable women's sports. So I suspect a lot of revenue and expenses that really pertain to football have been creatively filed somewhere else.

For example, I suspect that donations required to buy football tickets are listed as "revenues not allocated by gender", even though they're pretty much generated by football. Ditto for expenses, such as athletic facilities which are football-driven, but which other teams at the school also use.

So I don't think this data tells us very much.

Nobody's mentioned James Harper yet. He was a damned tenacious rebounder.

And another thing, did Mosley officially redshirt the 04-05 season? I think you have to do NCAA paperwork for that...

Velcro, the "eligibility clock" starts ticking when you enroll in college or JC. Even if you drop out of school, you still use one of your five years of eligibility (four + redshirt). So 05-06 is Mosley's last season to play, unless he gets special permission from the NCAA.

I still think the Big East champ could end up in the Sugar Bowl. Especially if the SEC champ is Georgia or Tennessee.

If we penalized posters for having secondary allegiances, we'd have to put almost everybody in the penalty box.