Arkansas is the 2nd SEC entry.

That's now six Southern Miss opponents and no Southern Miss yet...

I think we are no. 82 based on the hint, though, because we scored 236 points in 2012 and 516 in 2011.

(06-20-2013 12:02 PM)Freshy Wrote:  That's now six Southern Miss opponents and no Southern Miss yet...

I think we are no. 82 based on the hint, though, because we scored 236 points in 2012 and 516 in 2011.

You are correct. No. 82: Southern Mississippi

And based on this clue...

Quote:Who is No. 81? The city containing this university has no connection with a mathematician famed for his work with screws. (You're thinking of the other city by the same name.)

... Syracuse is #81.

You are correct, sir.

Who is No. 80? This university was founded in a leap year starting on a Sunday. The football program's lone nine-loss season also occurred in a leap year starting on a Sunday.

He's actually pretty close to what I was predicting for Southern Miss. Probably the biggest two differences are that he seemed to miss that the architect of our 2011 defense is back on staff and he is not very high on our young RBs. I pretty much agree with everything else right down to the 5 or 6 win season.

(06-21-2013 05:00 AM)Chappy Wrote:  Who is No. 80? This university was founded in a leap year starting on a Sunday. The football program's lone nine-loss season also occurred in a leap year starting on a Sunday.

If this team is who I think it is, Myerberg is mistaken: The year of the school's founding did not start on a Sunday.

1956 and 2012 were both leap years starting on Sundays, so the USF Bills fit the bull... er, Bulls fit the bill.

(06-20-2013 10:53 AM)Chappy Wrote:  Arkansas is the 2nd SEC entry.

That seems low for Arkansas. They have talent, and they had it last year. It was just a trainwreck of drama and emotions. I think Bielema will make them pretty competitive off the bat.

(06-21-2013 03:49 PM)Chappy Wrote:  1956 and 2012 were both leap years starting on Sundays, so the USF Bills fit the bull... er, Bulls fit the bill.

That's probably who it is, then. I was guessing Auburn.

Never crossed my mind that it could be a school that has been playing as long as Auburn given the "first 9 loss season" condition, but I just checked and last year was indeed Auburn's first 9 loss season... and they've played 122 seasons!

(06-21-2013 04:19 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Never crossed my mind that it could be a school that has been playing as long as Auburn given the "first 9 loss season" condition, but I just checked and last year was indeed Auburn's first 9 loss season... and they've played 122 seasons!

Tennessee has never lost more than 7 in a season. Oddly enough, they've tied that record-high for losses four times in their last five seasons.

I believe East Carolina is next.

"Who is No. 78? This team hasn't posted a winning season when scoring 273 points or less since 1997."

Since 1997, the ECU's fewest points scored in a winning season is 274 (in 1998).

Unless the clue implies that the team had a winning season in 1997 with 273 or fewer points, of course, then it's NOT ECU.

What these rankings do not show is how much football has improved for the smaller FBS programs under the BCS format. Who would have figured.

Not really sure you can say that about the programs that the system was suppose to help.

Think all that money pouring into the old AQ Conferences resulted in more parity and that has hurt some former power programs.

As far as the G5 going forward, what will become evident is how much CUSA and the former Big East have been hurt.

MWC should be fine and the MAC, and SBC, will be as good or better than they have ever been.

(06-22-2013 12:25 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  What these rankings do not show is how much football has improved for the smaller FBS programs under the BCS format. Who would have figured.

Not really sure you can say that about the programs that the system was suppose to help.

Think all that money pouring into the old AQ Conferences resulted in more parity and that has hurt some former power programs.

As far as the G5 going forward, what will become evident is how much CUSA and the former Big East have been hurt.

MWC should be fine and the MAC, and SBC, will be as good or better than they have ever been.

That is why I think that the playoff system is not going to be as big of a concern as many think. At the end of the day I think that the playoff system might end up accidently providing more access to the other 5 conferences then was initially intended. It is going to be the same problem: how can you keep a team that went 13-0 from playing in the playoff for a chance to play for the National Championship? That is probably why there is already a discussion about going from 4 to 8 spots, because some school from the MWC, AAC, MWC, CUSA or SB is going to eventually run the table and they should have the right to be in that playoff. What happens if 2 or more schools run the table in those conferences? How do you keep them out of the playoff without causing a ruckus.

(06-22-2013 12:25 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  What these rankings do not show is how much football has improved for the smaller FBS programs under the BCS format. Who would have figured.

Not really sure you can say that about the programs that the system was suppose to help.

Think all that money pouring into the old AQ Conferences resulted in more parity and that has hurt some former power programs.

As far as the G5 going forward, what will become evident is how much CUSA and the former Big East have been hurt.

MWC should be fine and the MAC, and SBC, will be as good or better than they have ever been.

5/11 Sun Belt teams are FCS call ups, 2 of them didn't even have a football team of any kind 5 years ago. The SBC might be better than they have ever been some day, but not anytime soon.

(06-22-2013 03:40 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 12:25 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  What these rankings do not show is how much football has improved for the smaller FBS programs under the BCS format. Who would have figured.

Not really sure you can say that about the programs that the system was suppose to help.

Think all that money pouring into the old AQ Conferences resulted in more parity and that has hurt some former power programs.

As far as the G5 going forward, what will become evident is how much CUSA and the former Big East have been hurt.

MWC should be fine and the MAC, and SBC, will be as good or better than they have ever been.

5/11 Sun Belt teams are FCS call ups, 2 of them didn't even have a football team of any kind 5 years ago. The SBC might be better than they have ever been some day, but not anytime soon.

But Ark st, louisiana and WKU will pick that conference up a bit. I would be willing to say in 5 years Ark st and Louisiana will be well known teams. Both are pouring money into their programs and both have very loyal fanbases

Quote: Who is No. 76? This university featured the only college coach outside the Dakotas with a last name beginning with two vowels to win more than 230 games.

Nevada is #76. Chris Ault won 233 games there.

You are correct.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...w/2450513/

Tough clue for the next one:

Who is No. 75? This team's new defensive coordinator is 51-24 in his last 75 games as a coordinator.