Great Plains Gopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,449
- Reaction score
- 991
- Points
- 113
Looks like we lost to two very good teams - and why didn't we recruit that Bison punter?
Because he was recruited as a Running Back and just last year was converted to punter after he was passed on the depth chart at running backLooks like we lost to two very good teams - and why didn't we recruit that Bison punter?
we will win this week? said:We lost to one very good team in USC. One can not put NDSU at the same level as USC! l would guess that USC would put up 40-50 against the bison by halftime!
Because he was recruited as a Running Back and just last year was converted to punter after he was passed on the depth chart at running back
While that may be true, it still points out one of the great mysteries about the Gophers. Why can't we find an effective punter among the 85 players on the roster? Or among the 40,000+ student body? Teams like NDSU have much less to pick from, yet they have a very effective punter. The "converted RB" averaged 41yds/punt on the season. Makes us look even worse that we are handing a scholarship to guys that cannot perform, yet other schools can find the hidden gem.
To be fair our starting qb was hurt in the USC game so that negates your whole point.The fact that a 10th place big ten team played terrible and had a crazy touchdown go against them on the last play of the first half in a game in which the starting qb for Minnesota was hurt yet the FCS national champion only won in a close game tells you the divide between the top of Fbs and the top of FCS.
Wish I could post a poll right here on how quickly Dpo will reply with a quick retort.
While that may be true, it still points out one of the great mysteries about the Gophers. Why can't we find an effective punter among the 85 players on the roster? Or among the 40,000+ student body? Teams like NDSU have much less to pick from, yet they have a very effective punter. The "converted RB" averaged 41yds/punt on the season. Makes us look even worse that we are handing a scholarship to guys that cannot perform, yet other schools can find the hidden gem.
Speak! Retort. Whatever you want. With over 5,000 posts, doesn't look like you have anything else to do but post.
The day the Gophers played USC, USC was not playing like they ever deserved the #5 spot at the end of the season. It gives the ranking system a black eye. Even you have to admit that SC didn't look the part of giant killer in the first few weeks of their season. So, when does the #5 get a bye for having a mediocre first half to get ranked as high as #5 in the final. Seems to me they were over-rated. Just because a panel of experts liked how they finished does not give me that good feeling that they knew what they were basing their judgement on other than "expert opinion". 80 million people vote for President and do they always get it right? I don't think so. Frankly, to deserve the #5 spot, they should have spanked Minnesota by several TDs. They didn't. I would have them around 20 - 25.
If these so-called experts can't get it right, why should we think that you got it right? The lowest-ranked 2-loss BCS team in the AP Poll is Michigan at #12. Putting USC at #25 would be pretty unusual, just because they struggled in one early game that they won. If they Gophers had beaten them, USC would have plummeted, but they won.[/QUOT
USC was the worst of the 10 - 2 teams IMO. We don't know if USC would have been 11-2 or 10-3 since they did not play in a bowl game. Since the cutoff for a 13 - 1 team was somewhere between the ranking of 14 - 18, a 10 - 2 team like USC certainly could fall between 20 - 25. I have seen stranger results over the years.
rabble rabble rabble