(11-06-2013 12:45 AM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote:  I'm not sure how much better Toledo is than OU, if any. Looking at the schedules UT vs Buffalo looks like a good matchup and should be a good game.

Unfortunately....

you're kidding me... They lost to CMU and got pummeled by Louisville. Toledo would rock OU this year and any year. Buffalo is good, but what happened last night will not happen to us. #RunningGame

(11-06-2013 12:10 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  Are the refs saying that since he was tackled in the end zone that's where he would have been had he not grounded the ball? Weird call. Looks like you could as easily called a late hit since Tettleton is dragged down about six yards after he releases the ball. Any refs on the board?

The correct call would have been intentional grounding, loss of down, and half the distance to the goal. The only way it is a safety is if he committed the intentional grounding while in the end zone. Anything before he entered the end zone is not a safety. Terrible call.

(11-06-2013 06:09 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:45 AM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote:  I'm not sure how much better Toledo is than OU, if any. Looking at the schedules UT vs Buffalo looks like a good matchup and should be a good game.

Unfortunately....

you're kidding me... They lost to CMU and got pummeled by Louisville. Toledo would rock OU this year and any year. Buffalo is good, but what happened last night will not happen to us. #RunningGame

Ohio, Buffalo, Toledo all have some similarities; all 3 have have demonstrated that they can stomp weak teams and lose handily to Top 25 teams.

Toledo has shown that they can hang with, and sometimes overcome, "good" teams, i.e., BSU, Navy and BGSU, if you consider BGSU "good." Ohio appears to have just played their first "good" team, in Buffalo. Next up they have BGSU. Buffalo has Toledo and BGSU ahead of them.

Remember, Toledo barely beat Navy and BGSU; those games could easily have gone the other way. We lost to BSU who isn't even ranked. We haven't exactly proven ourselves a power house.

So, now we know Buffalo is better than Ohio. So far, I would agree, it looks like Toledo is stronger than Ohio. Based on the similarities of the 3 teams, it looks to me like Buffalo is pretty good matchup for the Rockets. I say "unfortunately" because I would like to have seen Toledo make a much stronger showing against "good" teams. It's going to be an interesting game. Our offense can be prolific, but it can also nose into the ground. What's it going to do on Tuesday?

(11-06-2013 07:42 AM)Rocket Pirate Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:10 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  Are the refs saying that since he was tackled in the end zone that's where he would have been had he not grounded the ball? Weird call. Looks like you could as easily called a late hit since Tettleton is dragged down about six yards after he releases the ball. Any refs on the board?

The correct call would have been intentional grounding, loss of down, and half the distance to the goal. The only way it is a safety is if he committed the intentional grounding while in the end zone. Anything before he entered the end zone is not a safety. Terrible call.

Actually, intentional grounding is a "spot" foul and loss of down. There is no additional walkoff of yardage. In this case, no walkoff of half the distance to the goal. The Ball should have been spotted at the four yard line. Awefull Call!!!!!!!!

Went to the Buffalo game last year. Their stadium is totally weird and should be replaced. I've seen better design of junior high stadiums.

(11-06-2013 12:56 PM)Terry Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 07:42 AM)Rocket Pirate Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:10 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  Are the refs saying that since he was tackled in the end zone that's where he would have been had he not grounded the ball? Weird call. Looks like you could as easily called a late hit since Tettleton is dragged down about six yards after he releases the ball. Any refs on the board?

The correct call would have been intentional grounding, loss of down, and half the distance to the goal. The only way it is a safety is if he committed the intentional grounding while in the end zone. Anything before he entered the end zone is not a safety. Terrible call.

Actually, intentional grounding is a "spot" foul and loss of down. There is no additional walkoff of yardage. In this case, no walkoff of half the distance to the goal. The Ball should have been spotted at the four yard line. Awefull Call!!!!!!!!

You are correct. In the NFL, 10 yards is tacked on to the play, so it would have been half the distance to the goal in the NFL.

(11-06-2013 01:34 PM)Rocket Pirate Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:56 PM)Terry Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 07:42 AM)Rocket Pirate Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:10 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  Are the refs saying that since he was tackled in the end zone that's where he would have been had he not grounded the ball? Weird call. Looks like you could as easily called a late hit since Tettleton is dragged down about six yards after he releases the ball. Any refs on the board?

The correct call would have been intentional grounding, loss of down, and half the distance to the goal. The only way it is a safety is if he committed the intentional grounding while in the end zone. Anything before he entered the end zone is not a safety. Terrible call.

Actually, intentional grounding is a "spot" foul and loss of down. There is no additional walkoff of yardage. In this case, no walkoff of half the distance to the goal. The Ball should have been spotted at the four yard line. Awefull Call!!!!!!!!

You are correct. In the NFL, 10 yards is tacked on to the play, so it would have been half the distance to the goal in the NFL.

Just to clarify, the 10 yards is from the line of scrimmage. If the pass is thrown 10+ yards behind the line, it's a spot foul.

(11-06-2013 01:34 PM)Rocket Pirate Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:56 PM)Terry Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 07:42 AM)Rocket Pirate Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:10 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  Are the refs saying that since he was tackled in the end zone that's where he would have been had he not grounded the ball? Weird call. Looks like you could as easily called a late hit since Tettleton is dragged down about six yards after he releases the ball. Any refs on the board?

The correct call would have been intentional grounding, loss of down, and half the distance to the goal. The only way it is a safety is if he committed the intentional grounding while in the end zone. Anything before he entered the end zone is not a safety. Terrible call.

Actually, intentional grounding is a "spot" foul and loss of down. There is no additional walkoff of yardage. In this case, no walkoff of half the distance to the goal. The Ball should have been spotted at the four yard line. Awefull Call!!!!!!!!

You are correct. In the NFL, 10 yards is tacked on to the play, so it would have been half the distance to the goal in the NFL.

I believe it's a spot foul in the NoFunLeague as well.......

(11-06-2013 02:28 PM)Terry Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 01:34 PM)Rocket Pirate Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:56 PM)Terry Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 07:42 AM)Rocket Pirate Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:10 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  Are the refs saying that since he was tackled in the end zone that's where he would have been had he not grounded the ball? Weird call. Looks like you could as easily called a late hit since Tettleton is dragged down about six yards after he releases the ball. Any refs on the board?

The correct call would have been intentional grounding, loss of down, and half the distance to the goal. The only way it is a safety is if he committed the intentional grounding while in the end zone. Anything before he entered the end zone is not a safety. Terrible call.

Actually, intentional grounding is a "spot" foul and loss of down. There is no additional walkoff of yardage. In this case, no walkoff of half the distance to the goal. The Ball should have been spotted at the four yard line. Awefull Call!!!!!!!!

You are correct. In the NFL, 10 yards is tacked on to the play, so it would have been half the distance to the goal in the NFL.

I believe it's a spot foul in the NoFunLeague as well.......

It is.

(11-06-2013 02:38 PM)SPROCKETS Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 02:28 PM)Terry Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 01:34 PM)Rocket Pirate Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:56 PM)Terry Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 07:42 AM)Rocket Pirate Wrote:  The correct call would have been intentional grounding, loss of down, and half the distance to the goal. The only way it is a safety is if he committed the intentional grounding while in the end zone. Anything before he entered the end zone is not a safety. Terrible call.

Actually, intentional grounding is a "spot" foul and loss of down. There is no additional walkoff of yardage. In this case, no walkoff of half the distance to the goal. The Ball should have been spotted at the four yard line. Awefull Call!!!!!!!!

You are correct. In the NFL, 10 yards is tacked on to the play, so it would have been half the distance to the goal in the NFL.

I believe it's a spot foul in the NoFunLeague as well.......

It is.

Again, it's a spot foul if the pass is released 10+ yards behind the line of scrimmage. If it's less than 10, it's 10 yards from the LOS, or half the distance.

Looks like it's gonna be a cold one vs. Buffalo - high of 37, low of 27.

(11-06-2013 04:54 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  Looks like it's gonna be a cold one vs. Buffalo - high of 37, low of 27.

The first really cold game. One thing I've noticed is that we usually don't play well in the first really cold game. (Not meaning to be Debbie Downer, it's just something I've noticed over the years.) Maybe the forecast will change, though, as those two cold days (Tues, Wed) seem to be sandwiched between two near 50 days. I've seen the extended forecast change quite a bit over the past few days.

(11-06-2013 11:29 AM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 06:09 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(11-06-2013 12:45 AM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote:  I'm not sure how much better Toledo is than OU, if any. Looking at the schedules UT vs Buffalo looks like a good matchup and should be a good game.

Unfortunately....

you're kidding me... They lost to CMU and got pummeled by Louisville. Toledo would rock OU this year and any year. Buffalo is good, but what happened last night will not happen to us. #RunningGame

Ohio, Buffalo, Toledo all have some similarities; all 3 have have demonstrated that they can stomp weak teams and lose handily to Top 25 teams.

Toledo has shown that they can hang with, and sometimes overcome, "good" teams, i.e., BSU, Navy and BGSU, if you consider BGSU "good." Ohio appears to have just played their first "good" team, in Buffalo. Next up they have BGSU. Buffalo has Toledo and BGSU ahead of them.

Remember, Toledo barely beat Navy and BGSU; those games could easily have gone the other way. We lost to BSU who isn't even ranked. We haven't exactly proven ourselves a power house.

So, now we know Buffalo is better than Ohio. So far, I would agree, it looks like Toledo is stronger than Ohio. Based on the similarities of the 3 teams, it looks to me like Buffalo is pretty good matchup for the Rockets. I say "unfortunately" because I would like to have seen Toledo make a much stronger showing against "good" teams. It's going to be an interesting game. Our offense can be prolific, but it can also nose into the ground. What's it going to do on Tuesday?

The MAC is like this

NIU BSU
TOLEDO BUFFALO
BG
OU CMU

REST.

Subject to change, but we schedule way tougher than Ohio...beat up on bad teams...beat solid teams...(not lose to CMU and get beat by 30 to Buffalo), and we DONT get railed by great teams. Florida was a great team before Driskel and key defensive players fell to injury, and obviously Mizzou has shown to be better than Louisville.... Btw we didn't lose by 42!

OU will be in the bottom 5 bowl eligible teams this year. Unless our team gets plagued by injuries I firmly believe we are in the top half of the 70 bowl teams.

ohio did beat marshall and n texas who are pretty solid. they were really hurt by calls last night. refs mistakes (upheld by replay) changed the course of that game

(11-07-2013 03:45 AM)pono Wrote:  ohio did beat marshall and n texas who are pretty solid. they were really hurt by calls last night. refs mistakes (upheld by replay) changed the course of that game

Good teams get through adversity, and don't get pummeled into the ground when calls don't go their way. OU's offense didn't move the ball all game...

We don't have the type of team to roll over when the going gets tough! We beat CMU into the ground on their turf. I don't care if OU CAN play like a team with a winning record, they only do it in spurts. Toledo doesn't lose to teams we should beat,(if you think OU is actually on par with Buffalo or BG) by 30 points or lose to sub .500 teams at home.

Maybe the difference in talent is small, but Toledo has depth and an attitude heads and shoulders over OU.

NIU BSU
TOLEDO BUFFALO
BG
OU CMU

REST.

^^^^^^^^^^^
ALL teams we should not lose to.

I know I'm well ahead of myself, but who goes to Ford Field if NIU beats BSU and we beat NIU, assuming we each win the rest of the games in our season? How does that tiebreaker play out?

(11-07-2013 11:41 AM)42 of Blue Crew Wrote:  I know I'm well ahead of myself, but who goes to Ford Field if NIU beats BSU and we beat NIU, assuming we each win the rest of the games in our season? How does that tiebreaker play out?

I believe it's winning percentage of your league opponents (or maybe just the crossover opponents). Either way, it depends upon the record of who you played.

(11-07-2013 10:46 AM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote:  NIU BSU
TOLEDO BUFFALO
BG
OU CMU

REST.

^^^^^^^^^^^
ALL teams we should not lose to.

You saying you "shouldn't" lose to NIU and BSU? Aren't both of them better than you this year? I think most would agree they are...this year.

(11-07-2013 11:41 AM)42 of Blue Crew Wrote:  I know I'm well ahead of myself, but who goes to Ford Field if NIU beats BSU and we beat NIU, assuming we each win the rest of the games in our season? How does that tiebreaker play out?

According to UofToledoFans, we go. Has something to do with quality of wins vs cross over games or something. He explained it in another thread.