gobulls83

I fail to see how this makes it not creepy. You are searching on the Internet for photos of college-age girls you've never met so you and/or others can ogle over them* at home, photos that are available publicly but, unlike porn, weren't taken and shared with the intent of a bunch of anonymous men drooling over them. It may not be illegal, but it sure is creepy. * - If that's not the reason you do it, then what is?

USF 37-21 Daniels Davis 378.5

Stephen Nicholas with a big forced fumble just now against the Broncos on a nice tackle.

Ball State has no chance and it is silly to say otherwise. They put up 17 on Clemson's second string defense (mostly) because Clemson scored 45 on them in the first half, and Indiana is the single worst team in a BCS league, and on the short list for worst FBS team period - they won only one game last year, three the year before that. It will probably be disappointingly close, because Holtz doesn't seem to have it in him to blow out lesser foes, but USF is going to win this game. Anyone who says otherwise is overreacting to last week's loss (shocking, I know).

"Not awesome or anything" doesn't come close. Indiana has won 10 games in the past three years, three of them against FCS teams. Indiana is terrible, and it probably would have been more surprising if Indiana won - Ball State beat them last year too. And gave up 52. They got 17 points in the second half against several second-stringers in the Clemson defense because Clemson was up like 42 or something at the half. USF will win this game, there is no doubt.

Which is it, will the game be like the Chattanooga game, or will the game be in doubt in the fourth quarter? The Chattanooga game was never in doubt, and certainly not at any point in the second half. Just because the team didn't win by 70 doesn't mean the outcome was ever in question.

I thought extra cash was involved. Is every BE team forced to play a Thur night game as part of the contract? That's why I'm asking. Thought more cash was involved but IDK By team, number of weeknight games: Pitt - 3 (two Friday, one Thursday) Syracuse - 3 (all on Friday) Louisville - 2 (one Friday, one Thursday) USF - 2 (one Friday, one Thursday) Cincinnati - 3 (two Friday, one Thursday) UConn - 2 (both Friday) Rutgers - 2 (both Thursday) Temple - 1 (Friday - actually, Temple plays twice on Friday, but one is not a Big East game) So all eight teams have at least one weeknight game, all but Temple have more than one. It is pretty evenly distributed. It would seem to me that the only way a team gets more money is if the Big East doesn't distribute the television money evenly among all the teams, but I'm pretty sure the league does. I've never read anything suggesting otherwise and can't find anything quickly via Google to that effect.

Are you sure the teams actually get more money? The television contract presumably is for a certain number of Thursday night games, and the Big East then schedules them (I'm sure with some input from ESPN). So the payment is the television deal. That's my guess anyway, I've never heard anything about getting extra money.

Assuming Woolard sticks to his commitment, is he likely to be the starter next year, in the opinion of anyone who has an educated one? I don't know much about the guy, but I have a hard time believing next year's starting quarterback is currently on the roster.

I predict they finish 8-4. I think 9-3 is possible, but so is 6-6. The only game I would be shocked if they won is Florida State, the only game I'd be shocked if they lose is Ball State. Louisville is looking like a tough game obviously, but two hours ago when the Cardinals were pounding North Carolina it looked a lot worse than it does now, after they let UNC back in the game and had to make a last-minute goal line stand to preserve the win. Still will be a tough game to win, on the road in a series that has been dominated by the home team.

Do you actually watch college football? Pitt is terrible. There is no reason to assume losing to Rutgers means the team can't beat Pitt. Same with Miami. And USF will beat Ball State. pitts terrible huh..wanna speak now? Im going to guess you dont watch much college football. lol douche. What? Pitt is still the same team that lost to Youngstown State. It is no less stupid today to assume USF has no chance against Pitt than it was 24 hours ago. Is Pitt the worst team in college football? No. Are they good enough that it makes sense to mark it as a loss today, more than two months before the game? No, that is still monumentally stupid.

Meanwhile, Syracuse trails at home to Stonybrook.

Also, Sapp hit Clifton from the front and above the waist. Not an analogous hit at all, other than the fact that both were away from the ball.

Holtz should have pulled him from the game for getting blown up almost the entire night. The play above may have been a response to what the DL with Rutgers was doing inside to him and his brethren by the RU DL. Unfortunately, the RU folks won't want to show those instances so I'll give him a pass on this but not his overall play. If we didn't have another option at center, I could see why they left him in. I personnally would like to see the close ups of the Rutgers DL on USF's OL to see exactly what was happening in that scrum for the entire game. This RU puke that keeps lurking around here d may not like it though. Yeah the thought occurred to me that it was probably retaliation for something, but I don't think it really matters, personally. Two wrongs, and all that. This was a dirty hit that could have done serious injury and it was totally uncalled for, away from the ball with the guy's back turned to him. Nothing the Rutgers guy could have done justifies that. If a Rutgers player had done the same thing to a USF player, I know I'd be calling for his head. There are cheap shots, and then there are specific attempts to hurt someone. This is definitely the latter. And you KNOW this because of this short little clip? You've ascertained his state of mind from that? Please!! That's a really, really ridiculous argument. He dove at a guy's lower legs from behind way away from the ball. There is no circumstance in which he is supposed to be doing that. What was he doing if not trying to hurt him? He hit the guy in the thigh, upper part of leg, with his shoulder pad and his head was in front .... Whistle hadn't blown and the player was running toward the play. The Rutgers kid learned a lesson that Chad Clifton didn't learn until he got to the pros. This makes no sense. Watch the Rutgers player. His legs go forward, not backward. Reiter wraps his arm around the guy's knee ... from behind. He dove from behind and managed to get the top of his helmet onto the side of the Rutgers player's knee, that doesn't mean he didn't take him out from behind. And you can argue semantics of whether he hit the lower leg or not if you wish (though he clearly did), but clipping is hitting a guy from behind and anywhere below the waist, so it is moot. And Sapp's hit on Clifton wasn't penalized, though it WAS dirty and unnecessary. This one was dirty and unnecessary AND was flagged.

Holtz should have pulled him from the game for getting blown up almost the entire night. The play above may have been a response to what the DL with Rutgers was doing inside to him and his brethren by the RU DL. Unfortunately, the RU folks won't want to show those instances so I'll give him a pass on this but not his overall play. If we didn't have another option at center, I could see why they left him in. I personnally would like to see the close ups of the Rutgers DL on USF's OL to see exactly what was happening in that scrum for the entire game. This RU puke that keeps lurking around here d may not like it though. Yeah the thought occurred to me that it was probably retaliation for something, but I don't think it really matters, personally. Two wrongs, and all that. This was a dirty hit that could have done serious injury and it was totally uncalled for, away from the ball with the guy's back turned to him. Nothing the Rutgers guy could have done justifies that. If a Rutgers player had done the same thing to a USF player, I know I'd be calling for his head. There are cheap shots, and then there are specific attempts to hurt someone. This is definitely the latter. And you KNOW this because of this short little clip? You've ascertained his state of mind from that? Please!! That's a really, really ridiculous argument. He dove at a guy's lower legs from behind way away from the ball. There is no circumstance in which he is supposed to be doing that. What was he doing if not trying to hurt him? I guess no suspension should ever be handed out, unless the player actually comes out and specifically says, "yeah, I was trying to play dirty" then? Get a clue.

Holtz should have pulled him from the game for getting blown up almost the entire night. The play above may have been a response to what the DL with Rutgers was doing inside to him and his brethren by the RU DL. Unfortunately, the RU folks won't want to show those instances so I'll give him a pass on this but not his overall play. If we didn't have another option at center, I could see why they left him in. I personnally would like to see the close ups of the Rutgers DL on USF's OL to see exactly what was happening in that scrum for the entire game. This RU puke that keeps lurking around here d may not like it though. Yeah the thought occurred to me that it was probably retaliation for something, but I don't think it really matters, personally. Two wrongs, and all that. This was a dirty hit that could have done serious injury and it was totally uncalled for, away from the ball with the guy's back turned to him. Nothing the Rutgers guy could have done justifies that. If a Rutgers player had done the same thing to a USF player, I know I'd be calling for his head. There are cheap shots, and then there are specific attempts to hurt someone. This is definitely the latter.

Personal foul, clipping.

Holtz should suspend him. He should have been yanked from the game. That was shameful. He's lucky he didn't seriously injure the Rutgers guy.

An analogous situation that comes up a lot: Many times on passes that are very close to being completed, where the receiver just misses getting a foot in bounds or traps a ball on the ground barely, the official closest to the play will signal completed pass because he has an obstructed view, and then the back judge will come running in signalling incomplete and telling the side judge or umpire or whatever other official what he saw. The official ruling isn't a completed pass, just because that's the signal we happened to have seen first on television. The official ruling is an incomplete pass (assuming that is what the officials decide after disagreeing). You seem to think this is an unusual occurrence, the officials getting together after disagreeing about a call, but it is fairly common.

It hasn't gotten any less laughable.

Because one might have had a better view of the play than others. I don't know what you're suggesting, but if it's that the refs shouldn't be allowed to get together and discuss what exactly happened, it's not a good suggestion. I'm guessing, but don't know for sure, that the ultimate authority to determine what the call on the field is belongs to the referee, but he has to have input from the other officials. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve? Okay, if as you say another official had a better view of the muff, instead of the nearest official who ruled it a fumble, why didn't that ref blow his whistle to rule the play dead? I don't have a problem with two refs seeing different things from different angles, making conflicting calls and then getting together to sort it out. What I do have a problem with is when a call that wasn't made during the course of the play is then made after the play is finished. And then that play is further challenged by a booth review. Meaning it was judged three separate times. No, it was judged twice. If the play was "judged" more than twice because more than one official had a part in it, than every single play is judged at least six or seven times. I'm not sure some other official didn't blow the play dead. Regardless, I don't know the specifics, I don't know what was talked about in their huddle, etc. You asked why the officials could huddle up and talk about the play without the review, and the answer is because that's what they always do. You misframed it, though, when you said they huddled up to "overturn the initial ruling on the field." That's not what they did - one guy signaled touchdown, but that wasn't the official ruling on the field. The only official ruling on the field was that it was a muff. The official ruling came AFTER the officials huddled, not before. There was nothing wrong with the officials' decision-making process there. You are assuming one guy signaling a touchdown means that must be the ruling on the field, but that's not the case. Regardless, in my opinion, none of this matters, because even if it HAD been ruled a touchdown... I say yes, there would have been enough evidence to overturn it. To me, it was clear it was a muffed punt. The dude never had control. I'm sure there will be a couple people here who will insist otherwise - someone already has - but I don't see any valid argument that the guy had control. Just my opinion.

$250 for these tickets is absolutely outrageous, I hope nobody here actually paid for them.

Yeah, he got fired for lying to police, his team, and his boss. And probably was guilty of hiring someone just because he was sleeping with her. Much better than walking out of a contract. There is nothing about Bobby Petrino that is honest, honorable or trustworthy. The guy is a scum bag.

Or maybe it's because he's actually the best option? Remember exactly one year ago when many people were making EXACTLY the same argument, only for Eveld to come in when Daniels was hurt and let everyone know why Daniels was the one starting in the first place? Just because Daniels has shortcomings doesn't automatically make Floyd better. Holtz sees them in practice every day. Holtz is smart enough to be aware of all the mistakes Daniels makes - even if he doesn't come out and grill the guy publicly to satisfy your odd case of schadenfreude. If Holtz thinks Daniels is the best choice the team has, well, his opinion is a much more educated one than yours is. I know, I know, the team has lost a game, so that means Holtz is an idiot and must not know what he's doing. Great. Yawn.

Well if you're stubborn enough to just insist there were no good plays made by the defense, it's not hard to understand why. It's possible to both be really disappointed with a loss AND not think that every single thing about every single facet of the team absolutely sucks. The pass defense sucked big time, especially in the second half, and it plus an inept short passing attack cost USF the game. What is gained by adding more hyperbole onto that fact? Does it make you feel better? May have misunderstood my tone. I wasn't being sarcastic. I was serious that I thought it was good you could find the good in the game. I couldn't bring myself to re-watch the game today. I'm sure there were good plays and some good individual efforts. But I just wasn't thinking of any of that after the game or today. OK, sorry for my own snarky tone there. Definitely thought you were being sarcastic. I think we can agree this loss sucks big time.