You know how the Missouri-Kansas game is I think Mizz will pull it out I'm waiting to see how bad USC wikk take it to ND who knows it might be close So is anyone going to watch the Tennessee-Kentucky game Fulmer's going away party any picks I got Kentucky.
They could, but personally I'm not in favor of it, mostly because Jim Harbaugh is a former Michigan Wolverine, and I HATE the Wolverwienies and I'd hate to see any Husky football success attributed to the work of a Wolverwienie. More to the point - I believe that there's a clause in Jim Harbaugh's current contract that states that he IS NOT allowed to seek employment, at least not as a HEAD coach, at another Pac-10 school, at least not for a period of time. As for Pat Hill - maybe he could use a change of scenery 'cause right now the undisputed "King of the WAC" is Boise State as that 10 - 61 loss that Pat Hill's team suffered against Boise State seems to indicate. A few years ago I might have welcomed Pat Hill on Montlake...now I'm not so sure. I don't know who's gonna wanna coach the trainwreck that currently is Husky football - the more I see of supposed contenders for the position fall by the wayside for various reasons, the less it's looking like the "marquee" job that some people feel it is, or at least that it used to be.
As I stated in my earlier post, what I put the most weight on, at least in this case, is the head-to-head result. That and that I just feel that, as good as Oklahoma has looked the last few weeks, overall Texas' team is just a little better. If it comes down to a vote to see which team from the Big XII South goes to the Big XII championship game, I guess we're gonna find out which of those factors means more to the people who would be voting.
Well, that site is actually considered to be a "neutral" site since Missouri's campus is actually in Columbia. To be fair, aside from the rivalry itself, Missouri had little to play for today. They'd already clinched the Big XII North, as you noted. They aren't in contention for the national championship. And there is the little matter of a revenge factor for Kansas since Missouri ended Kansas' unbeaten season last year in that game and ruined whatever chances the Jayhawks may have had for playing in the national championship game this last January. Having typed all that, as good as the Tigers are, they are, in my opinion, no better than the fifth best team in the Big XII, overall, this season, so I guess I'm not all that surprised that the Jayhawks beat them, even though the Jayhawks went into that game not looking all that impressive, themselves.
Based on the season as a whole, USC should absolutely DESTROY the Irish today (today ND is the biggest underdog it has EVER been, either in the history of the USC vs. ND rivalry, or PERIOD). Of course, Lou Holtz thinks that the Irish will "wake up the echoes" and beat USC today (or at least keep the game close) but he's somewhat biased in favor of the Irish, having coached them for over a decade. I'm actually a Notre Dame football fan (though I'm not one of these people who believes that every player who puts the Notre Dame football uniform on is a future NFL Hall of Famer), but I really don't see how they're going to even stay in the game with the Trojans today, let alone beat them. I think Lee Corso predicted that USC will win today's game 46 - 6 and I think Mark May predicted that Notre Dame won't even score today. I think the Irish will try to pick themselves up after last Saturday's humiliating loss to Syracuse in South Bend last Saturday, but even if they do it won't be enough. USC will win today on their way to a ROMP over sorry UCLA next Saturday, an 11 - 1 final regular season record, and very likely one of the BCS bowls, if not the Rose.
It's a rivalry game!! Hadn't the Bulldogs won something like 7 straight in that series until today? Apparently the Yellowjackets wanted that game more than the Bulldogs did today. That happens sometimes...
I can tell you why I think Dirk Koetter didn't and Dan Hawkins hasn't done as well at ASU and CU, respectively, as they did at Boise State. It's as what Lee Corso often states on "College Gameday" - (I'm not sure about the % but I think his point is well made) 80% of games are won by the coach with the more talented players. Over the last decade, or so, Boise State has appeared to amass more talent in football than its WAC counterparts. Arizona State has good players, but it is NOT head-and-shoulders above the rest of the Pac-10 in talent the way Boise State appears to be in the WAC. Same thing for Dan Hawkins at Colorado. My point? That since the Boise State Broncos appear to have that much more talent than most, if not all, of their foes in the WAC, people assume that Boise State head football coaches are better than they actually are. In other words, when confronted with teams that have as much as or more talent than their teams do, those ex-Boise State coaches were found to be "mere mortals" when it came to coaching. My suspicion is that if Chris Petersen ever goes to a "BCS" conference team, the same thing will be found out about him (don't forget that Boise State lost to the Washington Huskies last year, the same Washington Huskies who ended up 4 - 9 and in last place in the Pac-10).
