National Champion is GT. No more questions.
Professional
All the TV viewers have seen on New year's day how GT manhandled Nebraska,
whom Colorado wasn't sure of beating until the 4th quater.
Remember this is the same GT team that beat Clemson. Talking about Clemson.
Boy. All the scrap that BIG10 can physically beat the ACC turned out to be
a JOKE. Illinois receivers weren't sure whether to catch the ball or protect
their body. They got real time MAJOR LEAGUE HITS which are RARE in BIG10. I am
not sure if Verduzco was in his senses for anither hour after he took the lick
from Johnson. Illinois got PULPED. Wait. This is the same Illinois team that
beat Colorado. No way is Colorado NC. If at all it gets than I will just think
it as a FIFTH DOWN CHAMPION.
All credit to GT. They remined undefeated in a conference that had the best
BOWL record this year. With a healthy Moore hand I don't think Tennesse would
have been close at all. Both of his INT would have been TD's instead.
Here is my list of top ten:
1. Georgia Tech
2. Miami
3. Florida State
4. Colorado (They don't deserve to be here. But atleast for their record...)
5. Notre Dame
6. Washington
7. Clemson
8. Michigan (No way they can be over Clemson, because they barely squeeked by
Illinois at home)
9. Texas
10. Penn State.
Bill Mangione-Smith
Remember this is the same GT team that beat Clemson. Talking about Clemson.
Boy. All the scrap that BIG10 can physically beat the ACC turned out to be
a JOKE. Illinois receivers weren't sure whether to catch the ball or protect
their body. They got real time MAJOR LEAGUE HITS which are RARE in BIG10.
Well, Professional, since you are unable to read a score sheet, let me enlighten
you about the final stats in the Clemson game.
Illinois Clemson
Firt Downs 14 18
Total yards 247 305
plays 69 68
Time of poss 27:30 32:30
Sacks 5 1
Turnovers 4 0
yard penalty 28 (2) 75 (10)
Now consider this: Illinois almost never gives up that many sacks or turnovers,
and Clemson almost never has that many sacks or turnovers.
Its clear what happened. Clemson came in and played well, a small but significant
amount better than Illinois. They should have won the game by about a td. Then
you throw in the turn overs, one going for a td, and you get a blow out. Don't
be a sucker and go around believing thats how the score would end up a second time.
Wait. This is the same Illinois team that
beat Colorado. No way is Colorado NC. If at all it gets than I will just think
it as a FIFTH DOWN CHAMPION.
Look, every once in a while somebody starts argueing about transitivity and looks
really silly. Like now. If there is one thing this year proved, its that good
teams can come way down one week, and bad teams can come way up.
7. Clemson
8. Michigan (No way they can be over Clemson, because they barely squeeked by
Illinois at home)
Hmm... Who did GT end up tieing? Didn't they just squeek by Virginia Tech?
Hey, there's a power house for you. Nothing like being consistent, Mr.
Professional, and your nothing like being consistent.
bill
--
-------------------------------
Bill Mangione-Smith
bil...@eecs.umich.edu
Glenn Russell
>In article <12...@hubcap.clemson.edu> ppa...@hubcap.clemson.edu (Professional) writes:
> Remember this is the same GT team that beat Clemson. Talking about Clemson.
> Boy. All the scrap that BIG10 can physically beat the ACC turned out to be
> a JOKE. Illinois receivers weren't sure whether to catch the ball or protect
> their body. They got real time MAJOR LEAGUE HITS which are RARE in BIG10.
>
>
>Well, Professional, since you are unable to read a score sheet, let me enlighten
>you about the final stats in the Clemson game.
> Illinois Clemson
>Firt Downs 14 18
>Total yards 247 305
>plays 69 68
>Time of poss 27:30 32:30
>Sacks 5 1
>Turnovers 4 0
>yard penalty 28 (2) 75 (10)
>
>Now consider this: Illinois almost never gives up that many sacks or turnovers,
>and Clemson almost never has that many sacks or turnovers.
>
>Its clear what happened. Clemson came in and played well, a small but significant
>amount better than Illinois.
Get a grip! Clemson 30, Illinois 0. Thats the only stat you need look
at. Illinois got licked, and good.
glenn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Russell | Colorado Buffaloes
University of Colorado, Boulder | 1991 Orange Bowl Champions
russ...@tramp.colorado.edu | NCAA National Champions
Bill Mangione-Smith
[my comments about clemson and illinois stats deleted]
Get a grip! Clemson 30, Illinois 0. Thats the only stat you need look
at. Illinois got licked, and good.
Clemson had 4 more first downs. Not surprisingly, they had 58 more yards.
5 more minutes of possession. I'm no Illinois fan, but none of
the numbers add up to a licking, if we discount the stats that we agree
(me by contention, you by not responding) are not typical of these two teams.
The only stat that you want to look at is the score, because thats the
only place Illinois got licked. Not on the field, on the score board.
But by the strength of your arguements, I don't expect you to understand
the difference.
Clemson won the game, and they are probably better than Illinosi normally,
but they sure as hell are not normally 30 points better. And not 15.
And not 7. But probably better.
glenn
Glenn Russell | Colorado Buffaloes
University of Colorado, Boulder | 1991 Orange Bowl Champions
russ...@tramp.colorado.edu | NCAA National Champions
Nope, sorry, but the Coaches, who supposedly are most expert at these
things, picked you guys second. Too bad.... I guess not everybody, like you,
thought GT was a stiff.
David Poore
>5 more minutes of possession. I'm no Illinois fan, but none of
>the numbers add up to a licking, if we discount the stats that we agree
>(me by contention, you by not responding) are not typical of these two teams.
>The only stat that you want to look at is the score, because thats the
>only place Illinois got licked. Not on the field, on the score board.
>Clemson won the game, and they are probably better than Illinosi normally,
>but they sure as hell are not normally 30 points better. And not 15.
>And not 7. But probably better.
Uh Bill, did you watch this game? Clemson certainly has a tradition of
tough defense, and while they might not average forcing as many sacks
and turnovers as they did in this game, I don't think the disparity is
that great. Any Clemson fans got stats on their averages for this year
in the turnover margin and sack dept.? The game I watched saw Clemson
dominate the entire first half. Illinois couldn't move the ball at all,
while Clemson did at will. In the second half Clemson started sending in
the scrubs and things evened up a bit. Geez, I'm an FSU fan (look what
they did to us last year) rooting for Clemson? Ok, so I'm working on
developing some conference loyalty!
David Poore
po...@gw.scri.fsu.edu
Randy Peppler
>whom Colorado wasn't sure of beating until the 4th quater.
Nebraska was about as marginal a New Year's Day bowl team as they
came this year. They didn't beat anyone good. Tech should have
whipped them. Notre Dame was a much tougher opponent for Colorado.
>
>Remember this is the same GT team that beat Clemson. Talking about Clemson.
>Boy. All the scrap that BIG10 can physically beat the ACC turned out to be
>a JOKE. Illinois receivers weren't sure whether to catch the ball or protect
>their body. They got real time MAJOR LEAGUE HITS which are RARE in BIG10. I am
>not sure if Verduzco was in his senses for anither hour after he took the lick
>from Johnson. Illinois got PULPED. Wait. This is the same Illinois team that
>beat Colorado. No way is Colorado NC. If at all it gets than I will just think
>it as a FIFTH DOWN CHAMPION.
Illinois nipped Colorado at home by one, very early in the season.
The best team in the Big Ten was Michigan. Clemson would have had
their hands full with them, or with the Michigan State "Steelers"...
If you look at Illinois' season, game by game, they did have some
weaknesses...
>
>All credit to GT. They remined undefeated in a conference that had the best
>BOWL record this year. With a healthy Moore hand I don't think Tennesse would
>have been close at all. Both of his INT would have been TD's instead.
>
>Here is my list of top ten:
>
>1. Georgia Tech
>2. Miami
>3. Florida State
>4. Colorado (They don't deserve to be here. But atleast for their record...)
>5. Notre Dame
>6. Washington
>7. Clemson
>8. Michigan (No way they can be over Clemson, because they barely squeeked by
> Illinois at home)
>9. Texas
>10. Penn State.
Georgia Tech should have been #1 ahead of Colorado before the bowls,
I guess, but I don't see how you can justify (listening, UPI?)
vaulting Tech over Colorado based on what happened on Tuesday.
Colorado was #1, Tech was #2, both won, and Colorado beat a much
tougher opponent, one known for rising to the occasion in the big
game (they sort of did it anyway)... Nebraska is developing a
reputation as being a collasal bowl bust...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Randy Peppler pep...@reepicheep.sws.uiuc.edu |
| Illinois State Water Survey or: pep...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Peppler
I'm also finding it hard to believe that anyone could actually find
a silver lining in Illinois' performance against Clemson. They got
their asses kicked! Bill, if you think Clemson should have won by
but one TD, then the score should have been 7-0. The Clemson
defense totally stiffled Illinois. Many of the Illinois offensive
yards came after the score was 24-0. This was a true butt-kicking
in which the stats don't tell the story. I'm proud to say I watched
the entire game (proud?). It was one of the many definitive
whippings on New Year's Day...
Bill Mangione-Smith
I'm also finding it hard to believe that anyone could actually find
a silver lining in Illinois' performance against Clemson. They got
their asses kicked! Bill, if you think Clemson should have won by
but one TD, then the score should have been 7-0.
Well, you got me. I didn't see the game. My point was that the stats didn't
suggest the final score at all, and very often a game ends up much more lopsided
that it should have. But very often the stats completely lie, which is I guess
what happened here.
But do you really believe that Clemson is 30, or even 15, points better than
Illinois on any given saturday this year? The sentiment of the original poster
was that Illinois should never have been on the same field as Clemson, and
I still just don't buy that.
| Randy Peppler pep...@reepicheep.sws.uiuc.edu |
Randy Peppler
>
> I'm also finding it hard to believe that anyone could actually find
> a silver lining in Illinois' performance against Clemson. They got
> their asses kicked! Bill, if you think Clemson should have won by
> but one TD, then the score should have been 7-0.
>
>Well, you got me. I didn't see the game. My point was that the stats didn't
>suggest the final score at all, and very often a game ends up much more lopsided
>that it should have. But very often the stats completely lie, which is I guess
>what happened here.
>
>But do you really believe that Clemson is 30, or even 15, points better than
>Illinois on any given saturday this year? The sentiment of the original poster
>was that Illinois should never have been on the same field as Clemson, and
>I still just don't buy that.
>
No, of course not. It just wasn't Illinois' day. Actually, it's
been a terrible two days around here, with that loss and IU's 109-74
shellacking of Illinois' basketball team last night...
My friend tells me that his friend sat behind Jeff George at Tampa
Stadium. Jeff seemed quite dismayed by his ex-mates' showing,
evidently... Could have been on the field, Jeff!
tom
I just can't resist to tell you the truth why Illinois got whipped like
that. I was in Tampa before the game. And I happened to come across Illini in
Busch Garden. They seemed to me a little lost in the big zoo, or maybe because
of the roller-coaster there. While I returned to my motel that night(Dec. 28),
TV was showing how Clemson Tigers prepared for the Hall of the Fame Bowl. This
reminded me very much of Minnesota Vikings getting whipped by Buccaneers because
earlier they went to Busch Garden for a happy Florida vacation.
Tom
Randy Peppler
I guess Clemson was down there two weeks longer than Illinois
preparing. We got lots of good TV snippets of the guys hitting the
beach and watching the bikinis. At least the cameramen were... The
wiseaker Tampa writers said Illinois would win even though Clemson
was favored, because Clemson would be using the Buccaneers locker
room...
Maybe the Illinois players spent too much time in the Busch Gardens
"Hospitality Room"???
Charlie Richter
> I guess, but I don't see how you can justify (listening, UPI?)
> vaulting Tech over Colorado based on what happened on Tuesday.
I can explain how I would have justified it, Randy. Before Tuesday, I
wasn't really sure how good the ACC was. But after seeing some of
Clemson's demolition of Illinois, some of Tech's romp over Nebraska,
and some of Virginia's narrow loss to Tennessee, I came to the
(inevitable, in my opinion) conclusion that the ACC really was a good
conference. And, as a result, Tech rose in my eyes.
Another factor for me was that Nebraska was a common opponent of both
Tech and Colorado. Before Tuesday, the two teams shared no common
opponents. And Tech did at least as well against Nebraska as Colorado
did. Gary claims that Nebraska wasn't trying against Tech. Maybe, or
maybe Tech is that good. After all, Texas had lots of motivation to
win the Cotton Bowl, and we know what that motivation got the 'Horns.
Now, Gary's going to claim I have Colorado on some list of mine. Well,
'tain't so. I've never attended any ACC school, either, for that matter.
To be honest, I think the split championship (Colorado in the AP, Tech in
the UPI, and Miami on the computers) is a just outcome for the season.
--
Charlie Richter MCC Austin, Texas
uucp: ric...@milano.uucp arpa: ric...@mcc.com
"The panic ... was not due to anything fundamentally weak in either business
or finance. It was confined to the market itself." - WSJ, Oct. 31, 1929
Ward Page
>evened up a bit.
This is a bit misleading. Illinois sent in it's second string at the same
time that Clemson did. The best innuendo you can get here is that Illinois'
second string is as good as Clemson's second string.
Ward Page
Ward Page
> the entire game (proud?). It was one of the many definitive
> whippings on New Year's Day...
Watched the entire game?!?!? Where's your loyalty? Why weren't you
watching Perdoo play ..... oops, never mind.
Ward Page
Aaron Fager
> came this year. They didn't beat anyone good. Tech should have
> whipped them. Notre Dame was a much tougher opponent for Colorado.
Louisville, or #4 Miami, would have been better.
> Georgia Tech should have been #1 ahead of Colorado before the bowls,
> I guess, but I don't see how you can justify (listening, UPI?)
> vaulting Tech over Colorado based on what happened on Tuesday.
There is precident. Last year, idle Miami leaped Michigan. This year,
Miami won two consecutive weeks and both weeks had teams (GT, Texas)
move ahead of them. They went from second to fourth, and noone complained
on the net. So by that, GT has every right to move ahead with a more
impressive win.
> game (they sort of did it anyway)... Nebraska is developing a
> reputation as being a collasal bowl bust...
If not for Colorado this year, the Big 8 as a conference was in danger
of appearing so (atleast against independants like UM, FSU, and ND.)
>| Randy Peppler pep...@reepicheep.sws.uiuc.edu |
--
Aaron Fager, University of Miami, Most Biased Fan Of The Following Teams.
Miami Hurricanes -- '1989 National Champions, Team of the 80's AND 90's.'
Miami Dolphins -- ' Best Professional Team in ANY SPORT the past 20 years.'
Miami Heat -- '1989 Florida State NBA Champions versus Orlando. '
Mark A. Mitchell
}I was stunned that #2 couldn't pull a better opponent than #19. Even #18
}Louisville, or #4 Miami, would have been better.
Shucks Aaron, do you think Miami would have gone to the $1.35 million
Citrus instead of the $3 million Cotton? Besides, Nebraska was #10
and Georgia Tech #5 when that deal was locked up. Had Tech been #2
at the time, they could have gone to the Cotton, Orange, Sugar, or
any other bowl that would have them.
--
"Some day a *real* rain will come to wash | Mark A. Mitchell Georgia Tech
the trash off the streets." | mmit...@msd.gatech.edu
Randy Peppler
What's a bowl game?
Dana A. Bunner
> To think that Tech has come as far as it has in such a short time gives
> all of us Boilermakers some hope, right?
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Randy, Did you cross-post this one to rec.humor?
:-)
Dana B. Watch out Boilermakers...Here comes BUCKY!
Randy Peppler
>> Georgia Tech should have been #1 ahead of Colorado before the bowls,
>> I guess, but I don't see how you can justify (listening, UPI?)
>> vaulting Tech over Colorado based on what happened on Tuesday.
>
>I can explain how I would have justified it, Randy. Before Tuesday, I
>wasn't really sure how good the ACC was. But after seeing some of
>Clemson's demolition of Illinois, some of Tech's romp over Nebraska,
>and some of Virginia's narrow loss to Tennessee, I came to the
>(inevitable, in my opinion) conclusion that the ACC really was a good
>conference. And, as a result, Tech rose in my eyes.
In mine, too...
>
>Another factor for me was that Nebraska was a common opponent of both
>Tech and Colorado. Before Tuesday, the two teams shared no common
>opponents. And Tech did at least as well against Nebraska as Colorado
>did. Gary claims that Nebraska wasn't trying against Tech. Maybe, or
>maybe Tech is that good. After all, Texas had lots of motivation to
>win the Cotton Bowl, and we know what that motivation got the 'Horns.
The only thing I can say here is that it's much harder to beat
Nebraska in Lincoln than in some bowl, as they always seem to stink
in bowls. I wonder why that is? Maybe the easy schedule? To me,
beating the then unbeaten (is that right?) Huskers in Lincoln on an
awful day was a great win for Colorado no matter how they did it...
>
>Now, Gary's going to claim I have Colorado on some list of mine. Well,
>'tain't so. I've never attended any ACC school, either, for that matter.
>To be honest, I think the split championship (Colorado in the AP, Tech in
>the UPI, and Miami on the computers) is a just outcome for the season.
To think that Tech has come as far as it has in such a short time gives
all of us Boilermakers some hope, right?
>--
>Charlie Richter MCC Austin, Texas
Randy Peppler
We resume our pathetic series next season, I see...
Elwood Blues
sure of the date. The Fox radio station in Denver (103.5) is flying people
out from G. Tech to play for the "mythical" NC here. Maybe this can
once-and-for-all put aside all the BS floating around the net. I mean the
arguments are getting pretty ridiculous. Hell, maybe Illinois should be NC
since they are the ONLY team to beat EITHER of the co-champs :-)
I'll post more about this "mythical National Championship" as it's being
billed out here, later.
______
| | Eric Linden
|___ |
| | -- University of Illinois Alumnus
|_____ . |_____ . Illini 23 Colorado 22 (revenge)
(now residing in the foothills of the rockies, i sure don't miss
illinois weather)
mail: lin...@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu
I bought some powdered water; I don't know what to add.