[halaleezy]

For a bunch of Stanford grads, the reading comprehension displayed here is shockingly bad.

[halaleezy]

For a bunch of Stanford grads, the reading comprehension displayed here is shockingly bad.

[D. C. Bear]

Here's the difference, put succinctly. RGIII is an exceptional athlete, and the major cog in Briles' offensive system, which is 6th in overall scoring. Luck is an exceptional athlete, and the engineer of our 5th rated scoring offense. RGIII executes, Luck creates.

Clearly the most outstanding player should have exceptional athletic ability and execution, but it's Luck's role as the primary decision maker in our offense that sets him apart. Doesn't appear that voters know how to account for that.

I'd also venture to say that if Stanford had Baylor's defense, Luck's offensive numbers would have been much more impressive. So many of our games were over early in the 3rd quarter, there was no reason for Luck to air it out. So it's silly to cite that as something impressive RGIII has overcome. I also wish people would have seen that what, 5, 6? of Luck's interceptions came off of drops from his WRs before they criticize him for having 9 INTs.

In any case, it looks as though RGIII has it wrapped up- he's got 11/5 odds I think I last saw. And I don't think he's an undeserving winner, certainly more so than a lot of other winners. But I think Luck was the most uniquely outstanding college football player of the past decade (Jason White? Matt Leinart? Mark Ingram? Troy Smith? So many of them don't even come close) at least, seems a shame he won't win it.

dabigv,
You mention that Baylor's offense is ranked 6th while Stanford's is 5th. That is true, but Stanford had a safety this season, and those numbers would have been reversed without it. In other words, Baylor and Stanford's offenses were virtually identical in terms of scoring. I remember two touchdowns by Baylor defenders, not sure if there were any more, but even that wouldn't make an appreciable difference statistically.

I'd venture to say that if Stanford had Baylor's defense, Stanford would be closer to 9-3 than 11-1. I don't think you realize just how bad Baylor's defense was in many games this year (although there was some improvement over time in terms of getting  a few stops and turnovers). The defense explains why Baylor's record was only 9-3. Add a couple of touchdowns to the opponent's average for Stanford, and you're looking at a similar record--8-4 or 9-3.

You talk about Luck not needing to air it out later in games. Was this just your perception from watching the games, or did you look at some numbers? The stats indicate that Luck did not "shut it down" in the second half of games. He had more second-half yardage than first-half yardage on fewer completions. I think this is an argument in his favor--he got better as the game went on--but it certainly tends to contradict the idea that Luck didn't "air it out" in the second half of games.

Baylor's defensive deficiencies are what that led to a three-loss record, and that's something RGIII will have had to overcome if he ends up winning the Voldemort. They don't have much to do with his offensive numbers, just with his team's record. Florida with Tim Tebow is a recent example of a three-loss team with a Voldemort winner, but most of the time a Voldemort winner is on a team with fewer than three losses.

halaleezy, be nice. They can read. They're just reading with their hearts and aren't real happy about the presumed results.

garvin, the ability to call audibles does not particularly differentiate Luck from RGIII. I know he wears dreads and can run faster than Luck, but Griffin is doing just as much out there with his mind as Luck is with his.

Finally, I think your guys will light up OSU like a Christmas tree. Just avoid turnovers and enjoy the BCS win.

[D. C. Bear]

Here's the difference, put succinctly. RGIII is an exceptional athlete, and the major cog in Briles' offensive system, which is 6th in overall scoring. Luck is an exceptional athlete, and the engineer of our 5th rated scoring offense. RGIII executes, Luck creates.

Clearly the most outstanding player should have exceptional athletic ability and execution, but it's Luck's role as the primary decision maker in our offense that sets him apart. Doesn't appear that voters know how to account for that.

I'd also venture to say that if Stanford had Baylor's defense, Luck's offensive numbers would have been much more impressive. So many of our games were over early in the 3rd quarter, there was no reason for Luck to air it out. So it's silly to cite that as something impressive RGIII has overcome. I also wish people would have seen that what, 5, 6? of Luck's interceptions came off of drops from his WRs before they criticize him for having 9 INTs.

In any case, it looks as though RGIII has it wrapped up- he's got 11/5 odds I think I last saw. And I don't think he's an undeserving winner, certainly more so than a lot of other winners. But I think Luck was the most uniquely outstanding college football player of the past decade (Jason White? Matt Leinart? Mark Ingram? Troy Smith? So many of them don't even come close) at least, seems a shame he won't win it.

dabigv,
You mention that Baylor's offense is ranked 6th while Stanford's is 5th. That is true, but Stanford had a safety this season, and those numbers would have been reversed without it. In other words, Baylor and Stanford's offenses were virtually identical in terms of scoring. I remember two touchdowns by Baylor defenders, not sure if there were any more, but even that wouldn't make an appreciable difference statistically.

I'd venture to say that if Stanford had Baylor's defense, Stanford would be closer to 9-3 than 11-1. I don't think you realize just how bad Baylor's defense was in many games this year (although there was some improvement over time in terms of getting  a few stops and turnovers). The defense explains why Baylor's record was only 9-3. Add a couple of touchdowns to the opponent's average for Stanford, and you're looking at a similar record--8-4 or 9-3.

You talk about Luck not needing to air it out later in games. Was this just your perception from watching the games, or did you look at some numbers? The stats indicate that Luck did not "shut it down" in the second half of games. He had more second-half yardage than first-half yardage on fewer completions. I think this is an argument in his favor--he got better as the game went on--but it certainly tends to contradict the idea that Luck didn't "air it out" in the second half of games.

Baylor's defensive deficiencies are what that led to a three-loss record, and that's something RGIII will have had to overcome if he ends up winning the Voldemort. They don't have much to do with his offensive numbers, just with his team's record. Florida with Tim Tebow is a recent example of a three-loss team with a Voldemort winner, but most of the time a Voldemort winner is on a team with fewer than three losses.

halaleezy, be nice. They can read. They're just reading with their hearts and aren't real happy about the presumed results.

garvin, the ability to call audibles does not particularly differentiate Luck from RGIII. I know he wears dreads and can run faster than Luck, but Griffin is doing just as much out there with his mind as Luck is with his.

Finally, I think your guys will light up OSU like a Christmas tree. Just avoid turnovers and enjoy the BCS win.

[cardfan09]

garvin, the ability to call audibles does not particularly differentiate Luck from RGIII. I know he wears dreads and can run faster than Luck, but Griffin is doing just as much out there with his mind as Luck is with his.

This has nothing to do with skin color, and shame on you for making such a careless implication.

[cardfan09]

garvin, the ability to call audibles does not particularly differentiate Luck from RGIII. I know he wears dreads and can run faster than Luck, but Griffin is doing just as much out there with his mind as Luck is with his.

This has nothing to do with skin color, and shame on you for making such a careless implication.

[fullmetal]

You talk about Luck not needing to air it out later in games. Was this just your perception from watching the games, or did you look at some numbers? The stats indicate that Luck did not "shut it down" in the second half of games. He had more second-half yardage than first-half yardage on fewer completions. I think this is an argument in his favor--he got better as the game went on--but it certainly tends to contradict the idea that Luck didn't "air it out" in the second half of games.

Your analysis resembles of a fantasy football stats overview.  The rest of us actually watched the games.  Luck didn't air it out in the way OSU or Baylor did--he didn't have the receiving corps to do that anyway.  Watch a few Stanford games.

[fullmetal]

You talk about Luck not needing to air it out later in games. Was this just your perception from watching the games, or did you look at some numbers? The stats indicate that Luck did not "shut it down" in the second half of games. He had more second-half yardage than first-half yardage on fewer completions. I think this is an argument in his favor--he got better as the game went on--but it certainly tends to contradict the idea that Luck didn't "air it out" in the second half of games.

Your analysis resembles of a fantasy football stats overview.  The rest of us actually watched the games.  Luck didn't air it out in the way OSU or Baylor did--he didn't have the receiving corps to do that anyway.  Watch a few Stanford games.

[Kathy]

This thread became tiresome several pages ago.

[Kathy]

This thread became tiresome several pages ago.

[GoodGrief]

garvin, the ability to call audibles does not particularly differentiate Luck from RGIII. I know he wears dreads and can run faster than Luck, but Griffin is doing just as much out there with his mind as Luck is with his.

Congratulations D.C. Bear. With just one sentence, you went from "fan defending his player" to douche.

[GoodGrief]

garvin, the ability to call audibles does not particularly differentiate Luck from RGIII. I know he wears dreads and can run faster than Luck, but Griffin is doing just as much out there with his mind as Luck is with his.

Congratulations D.C. Bear. With just one sentence, you went from "fan defending his player" to douche.

[D. C. Bear]

[quote author=D. C. Bear link=topic=5093.msg37149#msg37149 date=1323409752]You talk about Luck not needing to air it out later in games. Was this just your perception from watching the games, or did you look at some numbers? The stats indicate that Luck did not "shut it down" in the second half of games. He had more second-half yardage than first-half yardage on fewer completions. I think this is an argument in his favor--he got better as the game went on--but it certainly tends to contradict the idea that Luck didn't "air it out" in the second half of games.

Your analysis resembles of a fantasy football stats overview.  The rest of us actually watched the games.  Luck didn't air it out in the way OSU or Baylor did--he didn't have the receiving corps to do that anyway.  Watch a few Stanford games.
[/quote]

I'm not saying that he "aired it out" like OSU or Baylor do. I'm saying that he had more yards in the second half of games than in the first half of games. It's a comparison of Luck first half to Luck second half, and I think it speaks well of him. It does not indicate that he would have had more yards if he had not backed off in the second half of games. Watching the games without also examining the statistics can lead to false impressions.

As for my comment about Griffin wearing dreads and being faster, he does and he is. I get tired of people implying that he lacks the intelligence to be a great quarterback because he used to run track. He wasn't nearly the quarterback he is today when he was faster, before the ACL surgery. I don't think it is a race issue with posters here, I think it is an issue of denigrating one player's decision-making skills to make the impressive decision-making skills of another look even more impressive. With Griffin, you don't have to choose between being a smart football player and being an accurate passer or being a threat to take it to the house should he decide to tuck it and run. Comments like "if I ever had to decide between losing my arms or my brain -- it's a no-brainer to give up the brain." are, I think tinged with red-colored glasses that don't want to admit that RGIII and Luck are both great players, are both highly intelligent in the classroom and on the football field, but that Davey O'Brien Award-winner RGIII happened to have a better year in 2011 than Maxwell Award-winner Andrew Luck.

[D. C. Bear]

[quote author=D. C. Bear link=topic=5093.msg37149#msg37149 date=1323409752]You talk about Luck not needing to air it out later in games. Was this just your perception from watching the games, or did you look at some numbers? The stats indicate that Luck did not "shut it down" in the second half of games. He had more second-half yardage than first-half yardage on fewer completions. I think this is an argument in his favor--he got better as the game went on--but it certainly tends to contradict the idea that Luck didn't "air it out" in the second half of games.

Your analysis resembles of a fantasy football stats overview.  The rest of us actually watched the games.  Luck didn't air it out in the way OSU or Baylor did--he didn't have the receiving corps to do that anyway.  Watch a few Stanford games.
[/quote]

I'm not saying that he "aired it out" like OSU or Baylor do. I'm saying that he had more yards in the second half of games than in the first half of games. It's a comparison of Luck first half to Luck second half, and I think it speaks well of him. It does not indicate that he would have had more yards if he had not backed off in the second half of games. Watching the games without also examining the statistics can lead to false impressions.

As for my comment about Griffin wearing dreads and being faster, he does and he is. I get tired of people implying that he lacks the intelligence to be a great quarterback because he used to run track. He wasn't nearly the quarterback he is today when he was faster, before the ACL surgery. I don't think it is a race issue with posters here, I think it is an issue of denigrating one player's decision-making skills to make the impressive decision-making skills of another look even more impressive. With Griffin, you don't have to choose between being a smart football player and being an accurate passer or being a threat to take it to the house should he decide to tuck it and run. Comments like "if I ever had to decide between losing my arms or my brain -- it's a no-brainer to give up the brain." are, I think tinged with red-colored glasses that don't want to admit that RGIII and Luck are both great players, are both highly intelligent in the classroom and on the football field, but that Davey O'Brien Award-winner RGIII happened to have a better year in 2011 than Maxwell Award-winner Andrew Luck.

[76lsjumb]

Although I'm mindful of two things:  1) Kathy in Reply #88 is absolutely right and 2) dabigv's cartoon in Reply #78(?) is equally so, it really IS a slow Friday afternoon here, and I figured I'd say just one last thing on this topic before moving on to correct all of the other wrong things said on the Internet...

One group [who, as I understand it, are all college football coaches themselves] believes that Andrew Luck is the Player of the Year – Walter Camp

Another group [I can’t really determine who, but likely the foundation’s Board, I presume] believes that Andrew Luck is the nation’s top fourth or fifth-year quarterback who best exemplifies character and scholastic and athletic achievement – Johnny Unitas Golden Arm

Another group [identified by Wikipedia as “a panel of sportscasters, sportswriters, and National Collegiate Athletic Association head coaches and the membership of the Maxwell Football Club”] believes that Andrew Luck is the Player of the Year in college football this season – Maxwell Award

Another group [the College Sports Information Directors of America] believes that Andrew Luck is the Academic All-America® Team Member of the Year for Division I football – CoSIDA/Capital One

Now, the conventional wisdom is that another group [made up of all sorts of different people, including fans who voted on the Nissan website and Skip Bayless, among others] is probably going to select someone other than Andrew Luck as “the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity.”  Well, if that happens, it will be too bad, in my opinion, but so be it.  I’m comfortable with listening to the people in those other four groups.  And I'm still going to put a copy of the photo of Luck stiff-arming the N.D. guy up somewhere as a tribute to the outstanding guy who really did best exhibit the pursuit of excellence with integrity this year [and last year, too, for that matter...]

[BTW, I ran across this from July, 2011, in checking whether Bayless really does have a Voldemort vote -- http://newsok.com/article/3584733 .  Hopefully, when you “booked it,” you didn’t put too much money down…]

[76lsjumb]

Although I'm mindful of two things:  1) Kathy in Reply #88 is absolutely right and 2) dabigv's cartoon in Reply #78(?) is equally so, it really IS a slow Friday afternoon here, and I figured I'd say just one last thing on this topic before moving on to correct all of the other wrong things said on the Internet...

One group [who, as I understand it, are all college football coaches themselves] believes that Andrew Luck is the Player of the Year – Walter Camp

Another group [I can’t really determine who, but likely the foundation’s Board, I presume] believes that Andrew Luck is the nation’s top fourth or fifth-year quarterback who best exemplifies character and scholastic and athletic achievement – Johnny Unitas Golden Arm

Another group [identified by Wikipedia as “a panel of sportscasters, sportswriters, and National Collegiate Athletic Association head coaches and the membership of the Maxwell Football Club”] believes that Andrew Luck is the Player of the Year in college football this season – Maxwell Award

Another group [the College Sports Information Directors of America] believes that Andrew Luck is the Academic All-America® Team Member of the Year for Division I football – CoSIDA/Capital One

Now, the conventional wisdom is that another group [made up of all sorts of different people, including fans who voted on the Nissan website and Skip Bayless, among others] is probably going to select someone other than Andrew Luck as “the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity.”  Well, if that happens, it will be too bad, in my opinion, but so be it.  I’m comfortable with listening to the people in those other four groups.  And I'm still going to put a copy of the photo of Luck stiff-arming the N.D. guy up somewhere as a tribute to the outstanding guy who really did best exhibit the pursuit of excellence with integrity this year [and last year, too, for that matter...]

[BTW, I ran across this from July, 2011, in checking whether Bayless really does have a Voldemort vote -- http://newsok.com/article/3584733 .  Hopefully, when you “booked it,” you didn’t put too much money down…]

[fullmetal]

Watching the games without also examining the statistics can lead to false impressions.

Right, because the actual game itself can give false impressions...of...

Let me put it this way: look at the run/pass play ratio in Stanford's offensive playcalling by quarter.  Compare that to Baylor's.  I absolutely know that Baylor threw more often and for more yards than Stanford in the second half because Baylor kept on having to come from behind to win, and sometimes it was by large margins.  Guess RG3 didn't have to show up in the first half of every game to earn that Voldemort.  And being down early to Kansas?

[fullmetal]

Watching the games without also examining the statistics can lead to false impressions.

Right, because the actual game itself can give false impressions...of...

Let me put it this way: look at the run/pass play ratio in Stanford's offensive playcalling by quarter.  Compare that to Baylor's.  I absolutely know that Baylor threw more often and for more yards than Stanford in the second half because Baylor kept on having to come from behind to win, and sometimes it was by large margins.  Guess RG3 didn't have to show up in the first half of every game to earn that Voldemort.  And being down early to Kansas?

[D. C. Bear]

[quote author=D. C. Bear link=topic=5093.msg37198#msg37198 date=1323471002]Watching the games without also examining the statistics can lead to false impressions.

Right, because the actual game itself can give false impressions...of...

Let me put it this way: look at the run/pass play ratio in Stanford's offensive playcalling by quarter.  Compare that to Baylor's.  I absolutely know that Baylor threw more often and for more yards than Stanford in the second half because Baylor kept on having to come from behind to win, and sometimes it was by large margins.  Guess RG3 didn't have to show up in the first half of every game to earn that Voldemort.  And being down early to Kansas?
[/quote]

That's an interesting argument. Griffin didn't play well in the first half of games, so he had to turn it on at the end. I haven't heard that point before, but it seems almost plausible. Just for kicks, I looked at the numbers.

Let me put it this way. You are absolutely convinced that Baylor threw for more yards in the second half because "Baylor kept on having to come from behind to win, and sometimes it was by large margins." However, you are also absolutely wrong, too. Apparently, the games left a false impression of something.

These are the facts. Baylor passed more in the first half, both in attempts and yardage than they did in the second half. Stanford, on the other had, had more second half attempts (than Baylor) and more yardage in the second half (on fewer attempts) than they did in the first half. Those facts tend to speak against your theory about Baylor throwing more in the second half to come from behind by large margins, and the idea that RGIII "didn't have to show up in the first half to win the Voldemort," which, at this point, he may or may not have won.

Both offenses are very, very good and very balanced. However, Stanford has the better team because of its superior defense.

Baylor	Att	Comp	Yards	% total yds	TD	INT
First half	225	163	2196	51.4%	21	  3
Second half	166	120	2078	48.6%	18	  3
Stanford	Att	Comp	Yards	%total yds	TD	INT
First half	203	136	1485	45.3%	15	  7
Second half	183	134	1791	54.7%	21	  2

[D. C. Bear]

[quote author=D. C. Bear link=topic=5093.msg37198#msg37198 date=1323471002]Watching the games without also examining the statistics can lead to false impressions.

Right, because the actual game itself can give false impressions...of...

Let me put it this way: look at the run/pass play ratio in Stanford's offensive playcalling by quarter.  Compare that to Baylor's.  I absolutely know that Baylor threw more often and for more yards than Stanford in the second half because Baylor kept on having to come from behind to win, and sometimes it was by large margins.  Guess RG3 didn't have to show up in the first half of every game to earn that Voldemort.  And being down early to Kansas?
[/quote]

That's an interesting argument. Griffin didn't play well in the first half of games, so he had to turn it on at the end. I haven't heard that point before, but it seems almost plausible. Just for kicks, I looked at the numbers.

Let me put it this way. You are absolutely convinced that Baylor threw for more yards in the second half because "Baylor kept on having to come from behind to win, and sometimes it was by large margins." However, you are also absolutely wrong, too. Apparently, the games left a false impression of something.

These are the facts. Baylor passed more in the first half, both in attempts and yardage than they did in the second half. Stanford, on the other had, had more second half attempts (than Baylor) and more yardage in the second half (on fewer attempts) than they did in the first half. Those facts tend to speak against your theory about Baylor throwing more in the second half to come from behind by large margins, and the idea that RGIII "didn't have to show up in the first half to win the Voldemort," which, at this point, he may or may not have won.

Both offenses are very, very good and very balanced. However, Stanford has the better team because of its superior defense.

Baylor	Att	Comp	Yards	% total yds	TD	INT
First half	225	163	2196	51.4%	21	  3
Second half	166	120	2078	48.6%	18	  3
Stanford	Att	Comp	Yards	%total yds	TD	INT
First half	203	136	1485	45.3%	15	  7
Second half	183	134	1791	54.7%	21	  2

[jayasena]

Comments like "if I ever had to decide between losing my arms or my brain -- it's a no-brainer to give up the brain." are, I think tinged with red-colored glasses

If you wear glasses of some other color you don't need a brain? I was responding to a Stanford fan who claimed throwing and running is more important than decision making. What does that have to do with the color of glasses?

And you have to pull things in from other threads because you aren't making enough nonsensical arguments in this thread itself?

[jayasena]

Comments like "if I ever had to decide between losing my arms or my brain -- it's a no-brainer to give up the brain." are, I think tinged with red-colored glasses

If you wear glasses of some other color you don't need a brain? I was responding to a Stanford fan who claimed throwing and running is more important than decision making. What does that have to do with the color of glasses?

And you have to pull things in from other threads because you aren't making enough nonsensical arguments in this thread itself?

[wbond]

Now that that Voldemort stuff is settled (modesty and Superman socks), I can't wait to see if UW can stop RGIII from winning his second game this season not played in Baylor's stadium.

Wait, you say, but UW's defense is horrible, how can they possibly stop a Voldemort-winning QB?  Well, when Kansas takes you to OT, anything is possible.

If only, for the sake of the Baylor faithful and RGIII's good name, that darn bowl game were played in Waco, instead.

Perhaps, if the Huskies win, we can hear about how wonderful RGIII's stats were after the game. 

[wbond]

Now that that Voldemort stuff is settled (modesty and Superman socks), I can't wait to see if UW can stop RGIII from winning his second game this season not played in Baylor's stadium.

Wait, you say, but UW's defense is horrible, how can they possibly stop a Voldemort-winning QB?  Well, when Kansas takes you to OT, anything is possible.

If only, for the sake of the Baylor faithful and RGIII's good name, that darn bowl game were played in Waco, instead.

Perhaps, if the Huskies win, we can hear about how wonderful RGIII's stats were after the game. 

[unclechuck]

Now that that Voldemort stuff is settled (modesty and Superman socks), I can't wait to see if UW can stop RGIII from winning his second game this season not played in Baylor's stadium.

Wait, you say, but UW's defense is horrible, how can they possibly stop a Voldemort-winning QB?  Well, when Kansas takes you to OT, anything is possible.

If only, for the sake of the Baylor faithful and RGIII's good name, that darn bowl game were played in Waco, instead.

Perhaps, if the Huskies win, we can hear about how wonderful RGIII's stats were after the game.

wbond - I wasn't aware of the home/road disparity of Baylors's/RGIIIs schedule so I just checked. You are spot on: they had 8 home games and RGIII went 1-3 on the road with 2 X 30 point losses and his only win an overtime victory over Kansas.

This just makes me more disgusted with the Pac12 writers/voters who went for RGIII (Schroeder- OR, Withers-WA; that I know of) and of course the whole coven of Stanford smearmeisters @ ESPN.

Lazy, petty, other, all of the previous?

Or, were they also just pawns in a well orchestrated smear campaign by ESPN to hype interest in the Voldemort, whose broadcast rights they own? ESPN saw in October that Luck was running away with it so they started leading out all the Stanford game high lights with his one interception, before getting around to his 3 TD passes or that Stanford won the game handily. And of course we have the post Big Game Holtz & Mark May trashing of Andrew's pick where Montgomery fell down on his break (that Reece Davis called "his 3rd game in a row with a pick 6" even though the ball ended up on the Stanford 14 yard line).

It was all about the ratings and they played Andrew, Stanford, and all of us for suckers. Welcome to our new, 10 year, TV "partners".

[unclechuck]

Now that that Voldemort stuff is settled (modesty and Superman socks), I can't wait to see if UW can stop RGIII from winning his second game this season not played in Baylor's stadium.

Wait, you say, but UW's defense is horrible, how can they possibly stop a Voldemort-winning QB?  Well, when Kansas takes you to OT, anything is possible.

If only, for the sake of the Baylor faithful and RGIII's good name, that darn bowl game were played in Waco, instead.

Perhaps, if the Huskies win, we can hear about how wonderful RGIII's stats were after the game.

wbond - I wasn't aware of the home/road disparity of Baylors's/RGIIIs schedule so I just checked. You are spot on: they had 8 home games and RGIII went 1-3 on the road with 2 X 30 point losses and his only win an overtime victory over Kansas.

This just makes me more disgusted with the Pac12 writers/voters who went for RGIII (Schroeder- OR, Withers-WA; that I know of) and of course the whole coven of Stanford smearmeisters @ ESPN.

Lazy, petty, other, all of the previous?

Or, were they also just pawns in a well orchestrated smear campaign by ESPN to hype interest in the Voldemort, whose broadcast rights they own? ESPN saw in October that Luck was running away with it so they started leading out all the Stanford game high lights with his one interception, before getting around to his 3 TD passes or that Stanford won the game handily. And of course we have the post Big Game Holtz & Mark May trashing of Andrew's pick where Montgomery fell down on his break (that Reece Davis called "his 3rd game in a row with a pick 6" even though the ball ended up on the Stanford 14 yard line).

It was all about the ratings and they played Andrew, Stanford, and all of us for suckers. Welcome to our new, 10 year, TV "partners".

[yvonne]

wbond - I wasn't aware of the home/road disparity of Baylors's/RGIIIs schedule so I just checked. You are spot on: they had 8 home games and RGIII went 1-3 on the road with 2 X 30 point losses and his only win an overtime victory over Kansas.

This just makes me more disgusted with the Pac12 writers/voters who went for RGIII (Schroeder- OR, Withers-WA; that I know of) and of course the whole coven of Stanford smearmeisters @ ESPN.

Add Monte Poole, Oakland to that list.

[yvonne]

wbond - I wasn't aware of the home/road disparity of Baylors's/RGIIIs schedule so I just checked. You are spot on: they had 8 home games and RGIII went 1-3 on the road with 2 X 30 point losses and his only win an overtime victory over Kansas.

This just makes me more disgusted with the Pac12 writers/voters who went for RGIII (Schroeder- OR, Withers-WA; that I know of) and of course the whole coven of Stanford smearmeisters @ ESPN.

Add Monte Poole, Oakland to that list.

[wbond]

Or, were they also just pawns in a well orchestrated smear campaign by ESPN to hype interest in the Voldemort, whose broadcast rights they own? ESPN saw in October that Luck was running away with it so they started leading out all the Stanford game high lights with his one interception, before getting around to his 3 TD passes or that Stanford won the game handily. And of course we have the post Big Game Holtz & Mark May trashing of Andrew's pick where Montgomery fell down on his break (that Reece Davis called "his 3rd game in a row with a pick 6" even though the ball ended up on the Stanford 14 yard line).

It was all about the ratings and they played Andrew, Stanford, and all of us for suckers. Welcome to our new, 10 year, TV "partners".

Right.

It's not exactly rigged, but it's an awfully well orchestrated storyline they market. 

Of course, the Voldemort, is by its nature a popularity contest, a beauty contest, etc.

But the BCS, the BCS makes figure skating competitions look fair and objective.  The part that makes a small part of my sporting soul ache, is that the competition that should determine outcomes is replaced with rankings, spin, and influence.

Don King, himself, couldn't put on a better show.

[wbond]

Or, were they also just pawns in a well orchestrated smear campaign by ESPN to hype interest in the Voldemort, whose broadcast rights they own? ESPN saw in October that Luck was running away with it so they started leading out all the Stanford game high lights with his one interception, before getting around to his 3 TD passes or that Stanford won the game handily. And of course we have the post Big Game Holtz & Mark May trashing of Andrew's pick where Montgomery fell down on his break (that Reece Davis called "his 3rd game in a row with a pick 6" even though the ball ended up on the Stanford 14 yard line).

It was all about the ratings and they played Andrew, Stanford, and all of us for suckers. Welcome to our new, 10 year, TV "partners".

Right.

It's not exactly rigged, but it's an awfully well orchestrated storyline they market. 

Of course, the Voldemort, is by its nature a popularity contest, a beauty contest, etc.

But the BCS, the BCS makes figure skating competitions look fair and objective.  The part that makes a small part of my sporting soul ache, is that the competition that should determine outcomes is replaced with rankings, spin, and influence.

Don King, himself, couldn't put on a better show.

[unclechuck]

Right.

It's not exactly rigged, but it's an awfully well orchestrated storyline they market. 

Of course, the Voldemort, is by its nature a popularity contest, a beauty contest, etc.

But the BCS, the BCS makes figure skating competitions look fair and objective.  The part that makes a small part of my sporting soul ache, is that the competition that should determine outcomes is replaced with rankings, spin, and influence.

Don King, himself, couldn't put on a better show.

Exactly. The very heart of the matter.

Very nicely put.

[unclechuck]

Right.

It's not exactly rigged, but it's an awfully well orchestrated storyline they market. 

Of course, the Voldemort, is by its nature a popularity contest, a beauty contest, etc.

But the BCS, the BCS makes figure skating competitions look fair and objective.  The part that makes a small part of my sporting soul ache, is that the competition that should determine outcomes is replaced with rankings, spin, and influence.

Don King, himself, couldn't put on a better show.

Exactly. The very heart of the matter.

Very nicely put.