<p>Sam, neither conference has any signature wins yet to be honest but the top 3 ACC squads (Florida State, Clemson, and Miami) are better than the corresponding top 3 B1G teams (OSU, Nebraska, and Northwestern).</p>
<p>We"ll get some more answers this week when we see how Miami performs against Notre Dame. If it beats the Domers convincingly or honestly manages to run a fluid offense in a close-fought game, then all the doubters will know that the cream of the crop in the ACC are truly contendors since MSU and Michigan struggled against ND.</p>
<p>Michigan actually moved the ball quite effectively against Notre Dame. But they beat themselves with 6 turnovers, most of them unforced–silly passes by Denard Robinson into traffic, a couple catchable balls that bounced off receivers’ hands and into the arms of a surprised defender, a fumble, an ill-advised pass by tailback Vincent Smith into traffic. But they put together some long sustained drives: 78 yards, 63 yards, 56 yards, 42 yards, 32 yards. Unfortunately what they got out of that was 2 FG, a fumble, an INT, and a punt.</p>
<p>By the same token, Notre Dame’s offense was pretty ineffective against Michigan, which really dominated line play on both sides of the ball. ND’s longest drive was for 53 yards, resulting in a field goal. Their other scores came on a field goal after an ineffective 1 yard drive following an INT deep in Michigan territory, and a 48-yard drive starting at midfield that resulted in a TD.</p>
<p>Michigan dominated in first downs (19-14), third-down efficiency (8-15 v. 3-9), fourth-down efficiency (1-1 v. 0-0), total yards (299-239), rushing yards (161-94), rushing attempts (41-31), yards per carry (3.9-3.0) and time of possession (33:19-26:41). Passing yardage was pretty even, 145 for ND, 138 for Michigan. Normally when the offensive stats are that lopsided in one direction, the team with the better stats comes away with a comfortable win. But the one big stat in ND’s favor was turnovers: 6 for Michigan, 2 for ND. That more than erased Michigan’s offensive and defensive advantage. You’re not going to win when you turn the ball over 6 times. But as I said, those were almost entirely unforced, which means they’re correctable. I look for Michigan to make some noise in the Big Ten coming off their bye week.</p>
<p>The Notre Dame team I saw against Michigan is an eminently beatable team. I chalk that up as one Michigan should have won; they were bigger, stronger, faster on both sides of the ball and pretty much pushed ND around in both directions, in ND’s own house. But I’m not going to read anything into what it says about Michigan when some team comes along and beats ND, because Michigan handed that one to ND on a silver platter. As between the two, I’m confident Michigan is the better team. And as I said before, the team you see in week 4 is just not the same team as the one you’ll see in week 6. Better decisions by the QB and fewer unforced errors, and they’re a different and much better team. But if they don’t correct those mistakes, they’ll continue to lose games they should have won. That’s how football works.</p>
<p>(Michigan State’s another matter; in their own building they got thoroughly spanked by ND, which held Michigan State’s rushing attack–supposedly their strength, with some touting tailback Le’Veon Bell for the Heisman based on his early work–to 50 yards for the day. And their longest drives were 49 and 43 yards, resulting in one made field goal and one missed field goal. That tells me they’ve got some major problems on the O-line, because ND’s defense is just not that good).</p>
<p>I agree that ND is a bit overrated (should ranked more like 14th/15th than 9th).</p>
<p>Agree that w/o some semblance of a passing game, Sparty is going to lose a few games in conf.</p>
<p>Funny how despite the B1G being in a down year, ND gets ranked as high as it does for beating 3 B1G teams (2 of which were games that could have gone the other way).</p>
<p>Purdue is a pretty solid team but they aren’t getting much love.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not that rankings mean much this early in the seasoon, but the B1G has THREE teams ranked in the AP Top 25; the ACC has TWO.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, really?</p>
<p>That’s what Nebraska thought last year, and Iowa every year (well, actually, Iowa fans now have for the most part accepted that they are are NU’s you know what).</p>
<p>And a few tough losses for VaTech?</p>
<p>VT got crushed by a mediocre Pitt team (35-17) and Cincy is average at best. In addition, VT barely beat a GT team that lost to Middle Tenn.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On what basis are you aligning Miami w/ FSU and Clemson?</p>
<p>Miami has no signature wins (all the AQC wins have been close) and they got beat down by KSU.</p>
<p>In fact, Miami is behind both MSU and UM in the AP poll when it comes to receiving votes.</p>
<p>MSU - 43
UM - 38
Miami - 4</p>
<p>And it’s not even close (btw, Miami is ranked behind Ohio).</p>
<p>I see your arguments regarding CFB are just as dubious as many of your arguments when it comes to colleges (either basing things on nothing but your own opinion or basing things on dubious sources).</p>
<p>According to the AP voters, the B1G has 5 teams in the top 31 (think Purdue should be getting votes as well); the ACC has 3 teams ranked in the top 36.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait - so if the “Miami-ND” is a close fought game, it “proves” that Miami and the ACC are “truly contenders” and yet, when UM did so, it means nothing? lol</p>
<p>And Purdue lost to ND on a last minute FG so let’s not discount PU.</p>
<p>As usual, your “analysis” is both highly flawed and biased.</p>
<p>You B1G supporters can spin this any way you want but FSU could be potentially playing for the BCS Championship in January which no Big 10 team has a shot at currently and UVA beat Penn State. The ACC is 1-0 against the Big 10.</p>
<p>Not counting Northwestern’s win over Boston College? It’s easy to make an argument when you conveniently omit half the facts, but it doesn’t do much for your credibility.</p>
<p>It must burn to see the success that school across the bay has been having the past few years - and they even have academic standards for FB recruits (but then again, Harbaugh did institute a recruiting policy that has screwed over recruits).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that’s typical modus operandi by goldenboy - half-truths and dubious sources.</p>
<p>Miami beating BC (41-32) and Clemson beating BC (45-31) means they are upper tier teams, but NU beating BC (22-13) means nothing.</p>
<p>And as already noted, PSU would’ve beat UVA if their kicker hadn’t missed all those FG attempts (PSU’s All-American kicker transferred out) and if the 2 played now, PSU would beat UVA by a comfortable margin.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While dOSU is ineligible, they are still undefeated and so is NU.</p>
<p>FSU has played one decent team thus far and b/c the rest of the ACC is a joke, they won’t face a good team until the last game of the season against UF.</p>
<p>And one team hardly makes a conference. Not long ago, USC was winning national championships while the rest of the Pac-10 was average.</p>
<p>And it’s way early. Chances are, we’ll see FSU dropping the ball like they have done as the season goes along, just like VT has done all too often.</p>
<p>And considering the ACC’s BCS bowl record (the BE has a better BCS record), I would wait until the ACC wins a BCS bowl before talking conf. smack - and all this conf. talk is for those who follow teams which stink or the SEC.</p>
I don’t care about Stanford’s success. I’m glad they are successful. I want Cal to be successful. We aren’t getting there with Tedford. Football graduation rates have been dropping (now a shocking 11th in the Pac-12 and 111th out of 120 FBS schools)…if they keep dropping, we may not be bowl eligible even if we had a winning season. It’s time for a fresh outlook; Tedford has to go.</p>
<p>^ Under Harbaugh, recruits who had committed to Stanford would end up getting their reviews for admittance by Stanford admissions delayed until towards signing day.</p>
<p>If higher rated recruits at their positions ended up committing to Stanford, then the earlier (lower-rated) commits would somehow not get admitted even tho they clearly had the academic stats to get into Stanford as a FB recruit (often, the higher rated recruits would have lower academics, but get passed by admissions).</p>
<p>This was part of Harbaugh’s strategy of offering nearly every 3<em>/4</em> recruit in the country who were thought to have the academics to pass admissions.</p>
<p>Since many top recruits wait until close to signing day, this meant that Stanford wouldn’t have enough room in their recruiting classes for them unless they “thinned the nos.” so to speak (in a way, this is like the SEC’s oversigning).</p>
<p>One recruit who got shafted (was told he didn’t get past admissions until close to signing day and by that time most of the other schools had their recruiting classes filled) was from Louisiana or Texas and schools from his district decided to no longer let Stanford recruit their players.</p>
<p>Smart district. Why let anyone be recruited to play at a farm and study at a so-so academic school in Palo Alto when you can enjoy a couple of years at Texas AM or LSU?</p>
<p>Seriously, athletic recruiting has more BS stories and fake drama than the Kardashians.</p>
<p>The BS is not the story itself, but the twist you put on. This is from the same article.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>“They said they want him, but they can’t question admissions or they will lose their jobs. I talked to Coach (David) Shaw on Saturday, and he said they can’t control admissions. He said it’s secretive.” <<</p>
<p>Rather than taking a jab at a program with innuendos that come from envious coaches, you might consider lauding a program that is pursuing academic and athletic excellence at the same time. The same story reported Shaw as having no say in admissions decisions. You conveniently obfuscated that part.</p>
<p>Do you happen to have any insider info regarding the relation between Anderson and Dean Shaw that would support your allegation of using the admission to sever ties with athletes who lost a favored spot?</p>
<p>The reality is that Stanford had no recruiting advantage after winning 1 and 4 games at the time Harbaugh moved from San Diego. At least no advantage except being a selective school that values athletic without losing track of its mission. In fact the selective nature of the admissions might very well be what attracted gems such as Andrew Luck, who was NOT recruited by UT Texas. His recruiting class was derided by most observers before they played a collegiate down that is.</p>
<p>Considering the abominable practices in most programs, you really picked a poor issue to attack Stanford for its recruiting and admissions policies. </p>
<p>By the way, check the recognition of Anderson!</p>
<p>Lol, a battle of ineligible teams --including one that should not be playing for a decade-- to rule a conference that is a pale shadow of what it was in the past. A pitiful and disgraceful spectacle it is to see.</p>
<p>If Ohio St beats Nebraska the top 2 teams in the B1G would both be bowl ineligible and it is almost certain the only ranked team in the B1G would be Ohio St</p>