Gotta love Lou Holtttscchhh

[TheJON]

Holtz ripped on Iowa claiming we are winning ugly by beating a bunch of nobody's. Of course, he also mentioned how ugly our game against Illinois was.

I don't know if I've just been drinking too much or not, but I really do not recall playing Illinois. Checked 27 sites online to find Iowa's schedule and none of them had Illinois anywhere on the schedule.

That's odd.

[TheJON]

If people want change (ahem, a playoff system) in CFB, they should be rooting for Iowa. Iowa is the team that could force the NCAA to start thinking about making changes to the system. Why? Because if Iowa and Texas both go unbeaten and Iowa somehow jumps the Horns in the BCS standings, just imagine the meltdown from national pundits. If a program like Iowa dares take a spot from an elite program in an elitist sport, it would be utter chaos. This is the only type of chaos that would ever bring about change. USC being left out of title games doesn't do anything for change in the game because they've had their spots taken by elite programs. In 2003, it was OU vs LSU and so it's not a big deal. Besides, USC got a split title anyways.

If you want change, it will have to be a non-elite program overtaking a program like Texas to play for a title. It really is the only way we'll ever see any change. If there's enough of an uproar from the media and fans of a program like Texas, the NCAA just might listen.

Seems crazy, but this really how college football is run. It's kinda like instant replay in baseball. Only reason they ever got instant replay for homeruns is because of a blown call in a Yankees-Mets game. If that happens in a Royals-Indians game, for example, nobody cares.

[JMak]

Lou is really down on Iowa and I was surprised at hard he was going at them. I don't think there's anyone that will vote Iowa over Texas even with a win over OSU on the road. Texas has the Big XII Championship game which by itself will put the horns in the NC game provided they've won out.

[Terry in Crapchester]

If people want change (ahem, a playoff system) in CFB, they should be rooting for Iowa. Iowa is the team that could force the NCAA to start thinking about making changes to the system. Why? Because if Iowa and Texas both go unbeaten and Iowa somehow jumps the Horns in the BCS standings, just imagine the meltdown from national pundits. If a program like Iowa dares take a spot from an elite program in an elitist sport, it would be utter chaos. This is the only type of chaos that would ever bring about change. USC being left out of title games doesn't do anything for change in the game because they've had their spots taken by elite programs. In 2003, it was OU vs LSU and so it's not a big deal. Besides, USC got a split title anyways.

If you want change, it will have to be a non-elite program overtaking a program like Texas to play for a title. It really is the only way we'll ever see any change. If there's enough of an uproar from the media and fans of a program like Texas, the NCAA just might listen.

Seems crazy, but this really how college football is run. It's kinda like instant replay in baseball. Only reason they ever got instant replay for homeruns is because of a blown call in a Yankees-Mets game. If that happens in a Royals-Indians game, for example, nobody cares.

I want a playoff as badly as the next guy, and to an extent I see where you're going with this argument. However, using history as a guide, I have to disagree. Auburn going unbeaten in '04 didn't bring about change. Neither did the '07 season, where the BCS conferences produced no unbeatens, a single one-loss team (tOSU), and a handful of two-loss teams. And I don't see Iowa leapfrogging an unbeaten Texas team no matter the circumstances, sorry.

That having been said, rooting for chaos means, I guess, that I have to root for Iowa. We probably should include Cincinnati in that grouping as well, although a Pitt win over Cincinnati combined with a ND win over Pitt would help ND's BCS chances immensely.

And btw, I wouldn't call the Mets an elite MLB franchise, although that's just me. :wink:

[Degenerate]

IMO, the best chaotic outcome this year is if a one-loss team gets in the title game over an undefeated BCS conference team. It's one thing when the Gang of Six excludes someone deemed not worthy of being a part of their club. It's quite another when they start eating their own.

An undefeated Iowa being left out would be great (from an entropy standpoint only). But Cincy is more likely.

that said, it won't change a damn thing. The conference commissioners are making too much $$$ to be inclined to change.

[CintiBearcat92]

Yeah, alot of people are giving Iowa a hard time for winning close games. Is it better to lose close games? I'm having a hard time rooting against Iowa right now. As much as it would help Cincinnati if Iowa loses, I think Iowa is a damn good team and just continues to go out and win. I've always had alot of respect for Iowa and my interaction with Iowa fans has always left me impressed. I really hope that about 5 of us finish unbeaten and generate so much anger that they at least CONSIDER changing something. May not work but if Iowa and Cincinnati lose and the winner of Alabama/UF plays Texas then the BCS honks will claim that it all worked out in the end. Of course Boise State and probably TCU will get hosed but unfortunately there aren't too many people who seem to care about that.

[Terry in Crapchester]

that said, it won't change a damn thing. The conference commissioners are making too much $$$ to be inclined to change.

True, but I think a playoff would generate even more money.

[Degenerate]

that said, it won't change a damn thing. The conference commissioners are making too much $$$ to be inclined to change.

True, but I think a playoff would generate even more money.

We'd have a playoff in ten minutes if this were even close to being true.

Sorry, but I don't buy that line of thinking. It isn't "tradition" the conferences are wedded to. They care about one thing, and how they can manipulate the "kids" to get that one thing. If a playoff were part of that equation, we would already have one.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Gotta agree with Degenerate. I'm quite certain the Powers That Be have researched the financial benefits of a playoff above and beyond "message board speculation." Simply put, if there was more money to be had with a playoff, we'd have a playoff.

[Van]

Yeah, alot of people are giving Iowa a hard time for winning close games. Is it better to lose close games?

You're sorta forgetting Option C: It's better to look impressive by winning in a blow out, especially against teams you're supposed to kill.

"Is it better to lose close games?" What the fuck kind of stupid question was that?

The reason I still have Cincy over Iowa is that simple: Cincy has looked impressive in handling their business. Iowa has scabdicked nearly every week, against equally meh competition.

And yes, Mgo, there is certainly such a thing as a scabdick win. Iowa's win over NIU was as classic an example of a scabdick win as we'll ever see. They've had three or four of those this season.

Also, no, '04 was not an example of an elite team getting screwed. Auburn is not elite. They are not on the level of OU and USC. Had OU or USC been left out in favor of Auburn, that would've been a case of an elite team getting screwed. That would've caused a major media uproar.

Jon is right about his hypothesis. Should Iowa leapfrog an undefeated Texas, yep, that would create such an unholy uproar - especially following the Texas debacle of last season - that there would be calls for congress to step in and fix this thing, if the NCAA is unwilling to do it themselves.

Also, I agree with Terry. There is more money to be made with a playoffs. How wouldn't there be? Using the eight team model of the four major BCS bowls hosting first round games, then two semis, then the title game, there would be an additional two monster games, versus what we have now. The bowl payouts and tv contracts would be the same, or greater. The two extra games would create extra revenue. The title game would be much bigger than it already is, since it would be legitimate.

What mechanism of the current system ensures more money is being made than would be made with the above described playoffs?

The reason we don't have a playoffs is Jim Delany. He's got a stranglehold on the Rose Bowl, and the Big 10 has such a sweetheart deal that he's not willing to give it up. He's got Big 10 teams going to Rose Bowls they don't deserve, and he's got Big 10 teams getting stomped in title games and other BCS bowls they don't deserve. He loses these lucrative guarantees for his own conference if we go to a playoffs.

So, yes, at least in the case of the Big 10, there might be a concern for lost revenue. Thing is, other teams from other conferences would simply get that BCS money. Overall, more money would be made.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

And yes, Mgo, there is certainly such a thing as a scabdick win.

That's fine, but that doesn't mean I have to put any stock into it. I'm definitely more concerned with a team's strength of schedule than their average margin of victory.

[Van]

A team's SOS goes a long way towards determining their margin of victory. Play shitty teams, you win by a lot. Play good teams, you lose, or win by less.

This is why college football is such a total farce. The playing field is so un-level that there truly is no way to compare the quality of teams. Some teams schedule themselves into poor seasons, while other teams schedule themselves into phony success.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I'll take a team with a solid SOS, with a few scabdick wins peppered in there, over a team who hasn't really beaten anybody but is winning by 20-30 points per game.

[Van]

SOS is meaningless. Nobody's playing the same teams, so comparing stats and even records is meaningless.

The team you just beat is 6-1, but all their wins were against nobodies, and they looked meh in each win. That win still bumps up your SOS. Maybe that team gets automatic bonus points for wearing the right laundry. They still bump up your SOS.

It's all meaningless.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

SOS is meaningless. Nobody's playing the same teams, so comparing stats and even records is meaningless.

The team you just beat is 6-1, but all their wins were against nobodies, and they looked meh in each win. That win still bumps up your SOS. Maybe that team gets automatic bonus points for wearing the right laundry. They still bump up your SOS.

It's all meaningless.

C'mon, Van, you watch enough cfb to know what is and isn't a quality win. Just eyeball resumes, and compare strength. It's not that tough.

[Killian]

I'll take a team with a solid SOS, with a few scabdick wins peppered in there, over a team who hasn't really beaten anybody but is winning by 20-30 points per game.

Absofuckinglutely.


09/12/09 at Iowa State Ames, IA W, 35-3 Contrary to what y'all think, ISU is definitely better this year than they've been.

09/19/09 vs. Arizona Iowa City, IA W, 27-17 They beat the #3 Pac 10. I'd say that's pretty fucking good quality win.

09/26/09 at Penn State * University Park, PA W, 21-10 If going TO PSU and whooping them in their own house isn't a quality win, I'll lick somebody's dick. Ain't gonna happen.

10/03/09 vs. Arkansas State Iowa City, IA W, 24-21 Okay - now this one wasn't too good.

10/10/09 vs. Michigan (HC) * Iowa City, IA W, 30-28 They beat a MUCH improved UM team. Definitely a quality win.

10/17/09 at Wisconsin * Madison, WI W, 20-10 They go TO Wisconsin and win. Another damned good quality win.

10/24/09 at Michigan State * East Lansing, MI W, 15-13 MSU is always weird - usually suck against teams they should beat, but always seem to upset the good teams. Unreal ending to this game. MSU - quality team and this was @ MSU.

10/31/09 vs. Indiana * Iowa City, IA W, 42-24 Iowa looked like shit and suddenly woke up to kick the fuck out of an Indiana team that has given out some problems this year. I watched some of this one and again was impressed.

11/07/09 vs. Northwestern (FW) * Iowa City, IA 11:02 AM This one shouldn't be a problem, though NW has shown signs of life.

11/14/09 at Ohio State * Columbus, OH 2:35 PM THIS is going to be the true test for Iowa. OSU will be desperate - far more so than when they played USC. If Iowa wins this, I'm almost thinking they should play in the NCG.

11/21/09 vs. Minnesota * Iowa City, IA TBA This one shouldn't be too hard.


You know - I'll be honest with you. This was really the first time I've looked at the Iowa schedule collectively, and I'm pretty fucking impressed with it. They've got some damned good wins.

You know - the '72 Dolphins didn't just beat the fuck out of everybody.... Just sayin'....

Iowa is a good team. They're not great, they're not awful. They are a good, solid team with an exceptional defense and average offense. As I said before, they remind me very much of Notre Dame's 2002 team that won games on the strength of their defense and special teams.

My issue with them is that they have hardly played anyone. Yes, they beat Penn State. But how good is Penn State? They loaded up on cupcakes and then lost to Iowa. Clark basically out-sucked Stanzi that game, and Iowa took the lead on a somewhat freak blocked punt, where they weren't really rushing the punter. So they beat the one elite team on their schedule, at PSU, so props to them on that, no matter if PSU's ranking was over inflated to begin with.

I think what most people have a problem with is the close games against far inferior opponets. As a recap:

2 blocked field goals needed to beat 1AA Northern Iowa, 17-16
3 point win over an awful Arkansas State team
2 point win over a mediocre to bad UofM team
2 point win over a mediocre to bad MSU team

In their favor, they have:

10 point win over a solid Wisconsin team.
10 point win over an Arizona team who may or may not become bowl eligible
11 point win over PSU (outlined above)
18 point win over a bad IU team, where there were a few dubious calls that benefited Iowa
32 point win over an ISU team who may or may not become bowl eligible

The problem isn't with Iowa, it's with the system in general. Teams try to schedule national championship runs and then want to cry about SOS and how it should or shouldn't matter. Iowa had a lot of things working against them, most noteably the fact that they weren't ranked to begin with. When you're not ranked to start the season, you better fucking believe that style points count.

[buckeye_in_sc]

Ok Van exactly which NCG game hasn't a Big 10 team sinc the inception of the BCS has Delaney gotten a Big 10 team into that didn't deserve to go...I'll save you the research...the only BIG 10 team to play in the NCG game since the BCS came in was Ohio State...

13-0 in 2002 along with Miami only 2 undefeated teams...so exactly why didn't they deserve to go?
12-0 in 2006 with wins at Texas and over Iowa at Iowa and against #2 Michigan...did they get curb stomped? Yep against a UF team that had 6 SCABDICK wins that year...
11-1 in 2007 and I'll repeat yet again...when OSU lost to ILL they were FUCKING seventh in the BCS...it took Oregon losing, MIZZOU Losing TWICE, LSU losing, Va Tech losing, Oklahoma losing, and WEST FUCKING VIRGINIA losing at home as a 28 pt favorite to get OSU to the top of the heap...so exactly what did Delaney do there? For your information champ.....perhaps some research before shooting off with

He's got Big 10 teams going to Rose Bowls they don't deserve, and he's got Big 10 teams getting stomped in title games and other BCS bowls they don't deserve.



That is your quote...and besides last year PSU won the Big 10...they are contractually locked into the Rose if they are not #1 or #2 much like the Pac 10...so how is a Big 10 team going to a Rose Bowl it didn't deserve...I'll give you ILL in 2007...but that was the ROSE bowl keeping their fucking stupid ass tradition over picking the best matchup...

Don't act like the Pac 10 hasn't been a party to the non-playoff deal...it is roundly known that the Big 10 and Pac 10 commissioners are the hold ups...

yeah I want to punch Delaney but it's not like he can control what goes on the field...

[Van]

I would certainly agree that the Pac 10 commissioner is also among the guilty parties. He's in lockstep with Delany, who runs the Rose Bowl.

Take these guys out of the equation, and make it solely about money for everyone, and we'd have a playoffs tomorrow.

[CintiBearcat92]

I'll take a team with a solid SOS, with a few scabdick wins peppered in there, over a team who hasn't really beaten anybody but is winning by 20-30 points per game.

Absofuckinglutely.


09/12/09 at Iowa State Ames, IA W, 35-3 Contrary to what y'all think, ISU is definitely better this year than they've been.

10/10/09 vs. Michigan (HC) * Iowa City, IA W, 30-28 They beat a MUCH improved UM team. Definitely a quality win.

10/24/09 at Michigan State * East Lansing, MI W, 15-13 MSU is always weird - usually suck against teams they should beat, but always seem to upset the good teams. Unreal ending to this game. MSU - quality team and this was @ MSU.

10/31/09 vs. Indiana * Iowa City, IA W, 42-24 Iowa looked like shit and suddenly woke up to kick the fuck out of an Indiana team that has given out some problems this year. I watched some of this one and again was impressed.


You know - I'll be honest with you. This was really the first time I've looked at the Iowa schedule collectively, and I'm pretty fucking impressed with it. They've got some damned good wins

While bashing the schedules of others, mostly my Bearcats, you seem to be VERY generous in assessing Iowa's schedule.

Iowa State....definitely better than they've been. Ok, maybe but still not a quality win by any means. Nice try to pimp this one up though.

Michigan.....a quality win??? Why? Because Michigan used to be good and the name sounds good? This is a win over a very mediocre Michigan team.

Michigan State.....a quality win??? Why? They are 4-5 with their best win being over another mediocre team, Michigan. Name sounds nice though.

Indiana....given out some problems this year??? To who, the local HS team? Indiana's best win is over Illinois....enough said.

I'll agree that Iowa has 3 nice wins in victories over Penn State, Arizona, and Wisconsin. Their overall schedule strength is better than Cincinnati's so far and I can understand why some people would have them rated over Cincinnati. My problem is with the credit you give them for wins over mediocre and shitty teams. You act like a 47-15 win at 6-2 Rutgers on opening day in their new stadium is totally worthless but tout Iowa's victories over shit teams like Iowa State and Indiana. You talk about how great their win over Wisconsin is and it was a nice win. Iowa went into Wisconsin and won by 10 and Fresno State went into Wisconsin and lost by 3. Not a huge difference there but apparently our 8 point win over Fresno State was worth nothing. Beating Fresno State was a nice win for both Wisconsin AND Cincinnati. Cincinnati beats Louisville 41-10 with our backup QB and goes to Syracuse and wins by 21 with our backup QB but you act like those are wins over HS teams while pimping Iowa wins over similar teams in Iowa State and Indiana. Cincinnati beats #21 USF on the road by 17 points without Pike for the second half and it was because USF "sucked" in that game. You have no credibility at all. Anyone's schedule can be picked apart but at least do it with consistency.

[buckeye_in_sc]

Mace...I will be in vegas the weekend Iowa and OSU play...so I will be either rolling out really early to get bets down, etc...

good luck...

[Degenerate]

Also, I agree with Terry. There is more money to be made with a playoffs. How wouldn't there be? Using the eight team model of the four major BCS bowls hosting first round games, then two semis, then the title game, there would be an additional two monster games, versus what we have now. The bowl payouts and tv contracts would be the same, or greater. The two extra games would create extra revenue. The title game would be much bigger than it already is, since it would be legitimate.

What mechanism of the current system ensures more money is being made than would be made with the above described playoffs?

The bowl committees. They're the ones who make the payouts in the first place. Where do you think the money comes from? They call all of the shots, right down to the hotel the teams use (hint: it ain't the $89 Hampton Inn by the airport) , the number of nights they'll be there, and how many tickets they HAVE to sell, lest the schools themselves eat the cost of any that go unsold. Oh, and then there are all the dinners, cocktail parties, rounds of golf for university honchos during the week, city tours, and other "economic development" functions that the bowls presumaby fulfill to maintain their Congressionally provided tax-exempt status.

You may not think any of that matters, but it sure as shit does to the people who are spending the money. Turn the Orange Bowl into a first round game and all that ancillary shit - and the money that backs it - goes away. No more flying in Team A for a minimum of seven nights at $200 a pop for a week of meet-and-greets and trips to amusement parks.

I'd love to hear where any of you playoff proponents think this money will come from. Bowl trustees sure aren't going to raise it. The cities where the games are played sure aren't going to raise it, not if people are coming in just for the game and not the week-long spectacle.

And please don't say TV. FOX has been paying $82.5 million to carry the BCS ever since they got it a few years ago. BFD. A story in the Orange County Register a few years ago showed that what FOX is paying barely exceeds the bowl expenses incurred by every bowl team that year. Cash cow? Hardly.

Maybe you all have some pie in the sky dream of the NCAA getting all of the bowl trustees and conference commissioners in line, but it ain't ever gonna happen. The NCAA got out of the business of policing college football when Georgia and Oklahoma handed the NCAA its ass in court 25 years ago over the negotiating of tv deals.

Pinpointing Delany as the lone holdout is pure bullshit, btw. Mike Slive had a playoff proposal on the table when the commissioners last met and it was roundly rejected. If Delany was really the guy keeping the five other BCS commissioners from untold riches, he'd have been found floating in Lake Michigan by now.

EDIT: Just to add, even though I gave up on the idea of advocating for a playoff over ten years ago, I do think we'll actually get one. It will be some artificial non-solution, controlled by the big six conferences and four major bowl committees, and it will be no better, if not worse, than the current BCS system. But at least they'll be able to claim they gave the fans what they wanted, while laughing all the way to the bank.

[Van]

D, why does any of that bowl money disappear, just because those same bowls become hosts of the four big playoff games?

For instance, you don't think the moribund Orange Bowl game pitting the ACC vs the Big East every season of late doesn't see a HUGE increase in interest, and therefor revenue, if it becomes the host of #1 Florida vs #8 Cincinnati, with the winner moving on to the national semis - which could conceivably also take place in the Orange Bowl.

What about these horrible Sugar Bowls, pitting the SEC runner-up vs the BCS Buster, where neither team can win the title, and one of them doesn't even want to play the game?

Turn all four BCS bowls into meaningful playoff games pitting teams whose dreams of a national title are still alive - rather than letting them remain as the drab consolation games they've become - and interest in each of them goes through the roof. There is no arguing this. With interest comes revenue, and there is no arguing that, either.

I don't see how your bowl money and bowl perks go away, in this scenario. I only see them expanding.

[TheJON]

Holy crap, I forget my Blackberry when I hit the road today and I come back to this thread that's really got some good discussion in it. So many points to hit on.......where to start!?

Iowa started my downfall to a 1 correct pick week. I am very unhappy with the Hawkeyes. My son called me and said that Indiana was up 10 as the 4th quarter began. So naturally, even if Iowa came back to win, I knew I had a winner there.

Ya know, I realized the point spread was 17.5 points when a friend of mine who is not an Iowa fan called me on my walk back to the car after the game to say "fuck you, fuck Iowa". He had $500 on IU +17.5. Awesome!!

I want a playoff as badly as the next guy, and to an extent I see where you're going with this argument. However, using history as a guide, I have to disagree. Auburn going unbeaten in '04 didn't bring about change.

The title game that year was between Oklahoma and USC. No one is going to cry when a team is left out, so long as they aren't left out because of a non-elite program. And besides, Auburn is a very good program but not quite at the USC, Florida, Texas, etc. levels. If Iowa were to jump Texas, that's a different story.

Yeah, alot of people are giving Iowa a hard time for winning close games. Is it better to lose close games? I'm having a hard time rooting against Iowa right now. As much as it would help Cincinnati if Iowa loses, I think Iowa is a damn good team and just continues to go out and win. I've always had alot of respect for Iowa and my interaction with Iowa fans has always left me impressed. I really hope that about 5 of us finish unbeaten and generate so much anger that they at least CONSIDER changing something. May not work but if Iowa and Cincinnati lose and the winner of Alabama/UF plays Texas then the BCS honks will claim that it all worked out in the end. Of course Boise State and probably TCU will get hosed but unfortunately there aren't too many people who seem to care about that.

Classy post. I agree, I think there's too many teams with a chance to go unbeaten this year that deserve at least a shot to play for a title. The problem is no one will put up a hissy fit if Iowa, Cincy, TCU, and Boise get left out of the title game. As it stands, the championship game is set to be Texas vs the SEC champ. So even if the other 4 teams go unbeaten, everyone will say it worked out perfect because "the 2 best teams are playing for a title". Even if a couple of the other teams steamroll our opponent in the BCS bowl, it won't matter. Everyone will claim that Texas and Florida/Alabama were the 2 best teams and there's no need to change anything. This is an elitist sport that doesn't want some non-elite program taking the spot of an elite program in the title game. It's a shame. But we just have to accept that we're following a non-legit sport that is partially fixed. I tell you what, Bearcat.......the media can try and diminish what the rest of us unbeatens have done. And they can do their part to prevent us from playing for a title. But they can't take away from the fun we're having in this magical season. And should Iowa, Boise and/or TCU remain unbeaten and win a BCS Bowl........we can celebrate a national title- regardless of whether or not the NCAA wants to acknowledge that. I know I will be if we pull of a 13-0 season. And we have EVERY right to claim a national title as much as the actual BCS championship bowl winner does.

Gotta agree with Degenerate. I'm quite certain the Powers That Be have researched the financial benefits of a playoff above and beyond "message board speculation." Simply put, if there was more money to be had with a playoff, we'd have a playoff.

100% true. The NCAA cares about one thing, and one thing only........MONEY. Whatever makes them more money is what they'll do. These folks are jackasses, but they're outstanding business people. They've researched this 8 million times and have found the money is with the current system, not a playoff.

The reason I still have Cincy over Iowa is that simple: Cincy has looked impressive in handling their business. Iowa has scabdicked nearly every week, against equally meh competition.

That couldn't be any further from the truth, and you know it. I have been very impressed with Cincinnati, but to say they've played equally meh competion is so far from the truth it's not even funny. NO TOP 10 TEAM HAS PLAYED A TOUGHER SCHEDULE THAN IOWA.......PERIOD. As for the scabdicking garbage.........again, you're far off. We're a defensive team, and defensive teams are going to play a lot of close games. That's not scabdicking. That's our style of play. If Iowa is scabdicking to wins, what the hell did tOSU do in 2002 and Florida in 2006??? You'd have to invent a new term for their performances. Van, you really do need to pay more attention to Iowa because it's obvious you just catch glimpses of our games. Let me repeat something I've stated on here a few times...........IOWA HAS TAKEN A LEAD WITH LESS THAN 10 MINUTES LEFT TO PLAY IN A FOOTBALL GAME THIS YEAR ONLY ONCE. Scabdicking = taking control of the game with an entire quarter left to be played? The majority of our games have not been in doubt with more than 6-7 minutes left to play. Some of the games (Michigan, Arkansas State) were actually double digit leads late that turned into 1 score games, but we were never in jeopardy of losing. Northern Iowa and Michigan State were the ONLY games this year we were in jeopardy of losing. Every other game was essentially over with at least 5 minutes to go. That's not scabdicking.