(07-29-2013 08:45 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote: Well at least I got something right, I was just thinking how much of a douchebag you're coming across as and you proved that right.
One crybaby's "douchebag" is another rational man's "correct."
EDIT:
(07-29-2013 08:19 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote: I'm far from a sore loser, I'm proud of what KSU accomplished, but think some here have been pretty sore winners and pissing on people for no reason.
I got caught up in your tantrum aimed at me but for the record, I agree with you on this. NIU fan was being obnoxious, and I said so, but the point he was trying to make wasn't necessarily wrong.
(This post was last modified: 07-29-2013 09:23 PM by TARDledo.)
(07-29-2013 08:19 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote: To comment that if one was "idle" or not and got in is what is preposterous.
Wrong.
Technically if Kent would've been idle they would've moved up with UCLA losing. Putting them at #16 and in the Orange Bowl.
(07-29-2013 08:19 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote: Going into the MACC KSU was in decent position to make the Orange Bowl a reality, while nobody thought NIU would get in.
TARDledo Wrote:Wrong again.
Kent was ranked #17 in the BCS while NIU was #21. With the BCS rules stating "Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls."
So yes no one thought NIU would jump 5 spots in the BCS to #16. It took losses by UCLA, Texas, Nebraska and a win over Kent to jump up to 15.
(07-29-2013 08:19 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote: NIU needed KSU sitting where they were to knock them off to get in, not the other way around; any typical MACC opponent would've been enough.
TARDledo Wrote:Wrong-Wrong-Wrong: Trifecta!
Silly facts must have alluded you.
(07-29-2013 08:19 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote: As for Vegas dictating who is better, that shows just how little you truly know about how Vegas lines operate to influence bets and spread money.
TARDledo Wrote:Lastly, your hissyfit does not change that A) Kent State lost to NIU, and B) NIU was the better team.
I wouldn't say that NIU was the better team I would say that Jordan Lynch and Daniels were the two best players on the field that day. Kent had no answer for him running in the first half or Daniels in the second.
As for NIU dominating for "3.5 qtrs" is kinda ridiculous seeing how Kent was up 10-3 going into the 2nd qtr and then out scored NIU 21-7 in the 4th so it seems that it was pretty even at 2 qtrs a piece.
The notion that NIU "slid" into the Orange Bowl is preposterous. Neither NIU nor Kent State were guaranteed a BCS Bowl and each needed a victory over the other to boost the SOS. If Kent State was idle that week they do not get a BCS Bowl.
NIU took care of business, Kent State did not. If Kent State had won, would you be saying that they "slid" in?
Let's be honest, the only reason Kent State was ranked above NIU was the inherent flaws in the system. Anyone who actually followed MAC football knew that NIU was the better team. Las Vegas knew as well, making the Huskies the favorite in the game despite being the lower "ranked" team.
I kind of have to agree with (obnoxious) NIU fan here, Kent State was dominated, not just in the stat book, but on the field. The scoreboard didn't reflect this, you are correct, but that doesn't change what physically took place between the sidelines.
Don't be sore loser.
I don't know how anybody who actually watched the game would come across with any other impression.
(07-29-2013 08:19 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote: To comment that if one was "idle" or not and got in is what is preposterous.
Wrong.
Technically if Kent would've been idle they would've moved up with UCLA losing. Putting them at #16 and in the Orange Bowl.
(07-29-2013 08:19 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote: Going into the MACC KSU was in decent position to make the Orange Bowl a reality, while nobody thought NIU would get in.
TARDledo Wrote:Wrong again.
Kent was ranked #17 in the BCS while NIU was #21. With the BCS rules stating "Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls."
So yes no one thought NIU would jump 5 spots in the BCS to #16. It took losses by UCLA, Texas, Nebraska and a win over Kent to jump up to 15.
(07-29-2013 08:19 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote: NIU needed KSU sitting where they were to knock them off to get in, not the other way around; any typical MACC opponent would've been enough.
TARDledo Wrote:Wrong-Wrong-Wrong: Trifecta!
Silly facts must have alluded you.
(07-29-2013 08:19 PM)Polish Hammer Wrote: As for Vegas dictating who is better, that shows just how little you truly know about how Vegas lines operate to influence bets and spread money.
TARDledo Wrote:Lastly, your hissyfit does not change that A) Kent State lost to NIU, and B) NIU was the better team.
I wouldn't say that NIU was the better team I would say that Jordan Lynch and Daniels were the two best players on the field that day. Kent had no answer for him running in the first half or Daniels in the second.
As for NIU dominating for "3.5 qtrs" is kinda ridiculous seeing how Kent was up 10-3 going into the 2nd qtr and then out scored NIU 21-7 in the 4th so it seems that it was pretty even at 2 qtrs a piece.
lol I literally don't know how anybody could possibly say this. The entire game was dominated by NIU sans a fumbled punt and Lynch/Daniels dropping a handoff.
(07-29-2013 05:41 PM)TARDledo Wrote: That makes no sense.
If the reverse occurred Kent fans should have been grateful to NIU being good because a win against NIU would have sent Kent to the Orange Bowl as well.
^That, is exactly why the previous statement does not make sense.
(07-29-2013 06:24 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote: If the reverse occurred Kent fans should have been grateful to NIU being good because a win against NIU would have sent Kent to the Orange Bowl as well.
^That, is exactly why the previous statement does not make sense.
I think NIU was just the better team. Yards don't count for much though, you gotta put points on the board. If the scoreboard says it was close, it was close.
(07-30-2013 03:52 PM)NIU007 Wrote: I think NIU was just the better team. Yards don't count for much though, you gotta put points on the board. If the scoreboard says it was close, it was close.
I agree that NIU was the best team in the MAC last year. I don't think anyone has disagreed with that opinion. It seems there are a few NIU fans who want to spin the MACC game one way and spin the Orange Bowl another way.
(07-30-2013 05:06 PM)axeme Wrote: I agree that NIU was the best team in the MAC last year. I don't think anyone has disagreed with that opinion.
(07-30-2013 12:27 AM)ilovegymnast Wrote: I wouldn't say that NIU was the better team...
Point taken. For me, NIU won the MACC, so they are the best team, case closed. That's why we play the game. Just like when Akron and Miami won the MACC. They won the only argument that matters: the MACC. The rest is so much blah-blah-blah to me. Gymnast takes a different view and probably has some NIU fans who agreed with that approach when they lost the MACC. Some people are loyal beyond the evidence and I don't fault them for their fandom. More power to them.
(07-30-2013 05:06 PM)axeme Wrote: I agree that NIU was the best team in the MAC last year. I don't think anyone has disagreed with that opinion.
(07-30-2013 12:27 AM)ilovegymnast Wrote: I wouldn't say that NIU was the better team...
Point taken. For me, NIU won the MACC, so they are the best team, case closed. That's why we play the game. Just like when Akron and Miami won the MACC. They won the only argument that matters: the MACC. The rest is so much blah-blah-blah to me. Gymnast takes a different view and probably has some NIU fans who agreed with that approach when they lost the MACC. Some people are loyal beyond the evidence and I don't fault them for their fandom. More power to them.
Ugh, just HAD to bring that up didn't you? I almost threw my beer glass across the room when Akron beat us in the final seconds. The people at BWW probably wouldn't have appreciated that though.
It's really amazing how close the MACC games have been recently. Not exactly the typical MACtion but still good games.
We had a good QB in 2005, but we had a great receiver for him to throw to. Our RB Brett Biggs got us to the MAC Championship, and our WR won it for us. He was actually out most of the game with stomach cramps, and came in just for that final play, where he outran the NIU defense and caught a ball that wasn't thrown to anybody in particular.
Also, what a lot of people forget is that NIU had a chance to win the game on the ensuing kickoff return. We even kicked it to Garrett Wolfe even though it would have been better to kick it to literally anybody else on the field. He almost broke away for the win, too.
(This post was last modified: 07-30-2013 11:05 PM by uakronkid.)
(07-30-2013 05:06 PM)axeme Wrote: I agree that NIU was the best team in the MAC last year. I don't think anyone has disagreed with that opinion.
G
(07-30-2013 12:27 AM)ilovegymnast Wrote: I wouldn't say that NIU was the better team...
You didn't add on the part of me stating they had the 2 best players on the field. I think the teams matched up well but Lynch came out in the 2nd quarter as if he turned a switch on from reality to video game. I am not taking anything away from what he did out there. NIU had their offensive stars show up and despite what the stats say Kent's defensive stars kept them in the game.
As a side note of things I took the girlfriend to the MACC. She is pretty anti football despite going to all of Kent's home games, the MACC and the bowl game. After all those games she only knows Archers name and Keith's name, but if I bring up the MACC the first words out of her mouth are I hate Jordan Lynch followed by "How did they not know he was running it if I knew he was running". That is the kind of game he had that it burned into her head.
Last thing from me I noticed that ESPNU was doing a top 25 games from 2012 and was disappointed that a double OT championship game didn't make the list. Yet the Cincy-Louisville game made it.
Sorry Huskie fans, it appears we're getting into a MACC war. It'll be interesting to see Boucher starting this year after he spent two seasons backing up Dysert once he helped us win our bowl.
Looking back, I feel as if our short-term success hurt us in the long run regarding Haywood. He probably would've left for the first decent AQ job that offered him a position even if he stuck around at Miami for a little longer, but had we went something like 7-6 in 2010 he might've stayed another year. He would've had another class of recruits coming in, another year of his veteran coaching staff doing wonders with our team, and once he bolted for another job then someone within might've been hired. We could've kept up his momentum, like how CMU and NIU have been able to do so despite losing coaches to bigger programs, but it was never to be.
If Treadwell doesn't get to a bowl, I expect that he'll be canned very quickly, and it'll be interesting to see who we would consider to replace him. Would AD Sayler try to bring in Haywood again and pull a Mike Riley? Probably not, but interesting to think about nonetheless.
(This post was last modified: 07-30-2013 11:41 PM by Love and Honor.)
