Miami is playing at a different speed out there. I don't think it would have mattered who showed up tonight. They're just the total package.
What is that supposed to mean, Cat? I have bit my tongue in reading some of your posts in defending Texas, but if you really think that Miami's dominance is due completely to Nebraska's ineptitude, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take anything you say or post seriously any more. It's like Dirt and Timing said: Miami is that good. Period.
<B>I'll talk about that below, but considering my track record in bowl games thus far, this is probably a good sign for Miami. </B> See, I was right!
No offense, but the last time Nebraska went out on the field, they got reamed in a similar manner, so excuse us for not bowing to the altar of Miami-is-greatness. Colorado was more dominant offense, but you guys have been better on defense. Miami is a very good team,, but I think its very clear that Nebraska did in no way belong in this game. For the second straight year, the BCS has failed in its stated purpose. What a crock.
Colorado did virtually the same thing that Miami did tonight. Oregon took it to Colorado. I'd just like to see how they played against Miami, because beating Nebraska this bad isn't anything CU didn't do. I think Miami is a very good team, but I also think they're benefiting from playing an opponent that isn't even in the level of the top 10-15. I think Oregon could've at the least given Miami a game. If that makes everything that I say a joke, then so be it.
No Colorado did not virtually do the same thing. Colorado gave up 550 yards and 36 points against Nebraska. Miami is throwing a shut out and has Nebraska looking completely outclassed in every aspect of the game. If Nebraska isn't in the top 10-15 for getting whipped by Miami then where do we rank Texas for giving up 40 points to a Washinton team that got obliterated by Miami?
<B>Colorado did virtually the same thing that Miami did tonight. Oregon took it to Colorado. I'd just like to see how they played against Miami, because beating Nebraska this bad isn't anything CU didn't do. </b> The difference is that CU bombed NU, but NU hit right back. NU had over 500 yards in offense and 30+ points in that game. They came right back and got it to a 12(?) point margin in the 3rd quarter. Miami is dismantling Nebraska on ALL sides of the ball.
CU's defense got a little bit lax after getting up 35-3-- who wouldn't? Edit: As I typed this, Nebraska just got a TD run on a softer Miami defense. I don't consider how well your defense plays after you get a 30 point lead to be a big factor in comparing teams. When's the last time you've seen a 30 point comeback in a major college game? Now, to Texas... First of all, Miami played Washington in Miami. Texas didn't play Washington in Austin. It's much harder for an offense to operate when they don't have 80,000 fans screaming at them. Second, Major gave them about 13 points off turnovers in the first half. Third, Texas experienced the Kansas St. syndrome for the first two and a half quarters of the game. Remember when K-State was the Big XII game away from the championship game? They barely lost that game, fell all the way to the Alamo Bowl, and came out uninspired and lost. Texas had a very similar situation this year. Despite what anyone says, it's very difficult to give the highest level of intensity in the Holiday Bowl when you were one less penalty away from the national championship. Was Kansas St. worse than Purdue the year they lost to them in the Alamo Bowl? No. That game, and the Holiday Bowl for the UT defense, was a natural letdown after coming so close to the title game. That stuff happens in sports. Since Texas will be competing for a national championship next year, I think it's better to use defensive stats from games at which they were at their highest intensity level.
Since when was 500 yards and 30 points getting "a little lax"? That kinda lax is what sets school records. The last time I saw a 30 point comeback was a few weeks ago when Marshall was down 30 to East Carolina and won the game. Next... Miami won 65-7 while Texas scrapes by 47-43 against the same team in the last minute of the game and it's because of the home field advantage? Are you really going to go to the "35 point home field advantage" card? You think it's only fair to use stats from where the team is at it's highest intensity level but that only seems to be the case when Texas is playing crappy teams in games that don't mean anything. College football doesn't allow do overs, asterisks, excuses, referee conspiracies, etc.
Marshall vs. East Carolina is not a major college football game. Give me a big game, with national title implications, that one team has come back from a 35-3 or 34-0 deficit. Miami beat Washington by 58 points. They went up to a Virginia Tech team who was barely ranked ahead of Washington and came away with a two point win. Is Virginia Tech 56 points better than Washington, or do you think that home field advantage had something to do with it? I'd bet Va Tech would've lost by about 50 in Miami too. Actually, Syracuse beat Virginia Tech head to head, but lost 59-0 to Miami in Miami. Virginia Tech lost by 2. Syracuse was clearly a better team than VT when they played head to head, but lost by 57 more points against Miami. You don't suppose home field had anything to do with that? You think it's only fair to use stats from where the team is at it's highest intensity level but that only seems to be the case when Texas is playing crappy teams in games that don't mean anything. College football doesn't allow do overs, asterisks, excuses, referee conspiracies, etc. And you call Texas' defense overrated based on two games out of thirteen. Do you think it's fair to use stats from only those games? Cause for the whole season, Texas had the top defense in the country. If you want to go by the whole season stats, Texas was the best D in the country, and as you said there are no do-overs, asterisks, excuses, or conspiracies.
So, Cat, Miami outgained Nebraska in total yardage by over 200 yards in what was essentially a home game for Nebraska. And you compare this to the Colorado game? ROTFLMFAO!!! If it wasn't for penalties, Miami would have won this game at least by a score of 41-7 or even worse. This doesn't count the fact that the punt return by Nebraska had 2 blocks in the back that weren't called. So, Miami's defense gave up only one touchdown where Colorado's gave up what 4 or 5? Yea, real comparable... Miami really, really let up in the second half, and of course, I was pissed by that. However, I have waited a long time for this, so I don't care what you say. Just like I learned last season, it doesn't change the fact that the best team won and the only undefeated team won. Did Nebraska belong in the BCS? No, not in my opinion. I have always felt that the BCS does not work. Oregon should have been there. Would they have beaten Miami? Well, just like a Miami vs Oklahoma match-up for last season, we'll never know. But for the record, I don't think they could because when Miami was focused, they were unstoppable. BTW - That hit by Vilma at the end of the game was one of the greatest hits that I have ever seen. I couldn't believe that 1) Nebraska recovered that fumble 2) That dude was able to get up and walk off the field. The University of Miami Hurricanes - National Champions of 1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, and 2001! P.S. - Thanks Major for the kind words and the honest opinions. Same for BGM. Also, thanks to rockHEAD, one of the biggest Miami fans that I know on this BBS. Doesn't it feel great, HEAD?
<B>P.S. - Thanks Major for the kind words and the honest opinions. Same for BGM. Also, thanks to rockHEAD, one of the biggest Miami fans that I know on this BBS. Doesn't it feel great, HEAD?</B> Congrats on the win! Not the result I was looking for , but I'm happy for Dorsey & company -- they showed they deserved it. The Big East as a whole also had a pretty good showing with BC, Syracuse, and Pitt all getting good wins. Like OU last year, Miami deserves every bit of credit. They are the only team in the country that did everything they had control over. Oregon had an argument -- but they shouldn't have lost to Stanford. Same with Illinois vs. Michigan and Maryland vs. FSU. Miami got close a couple of times, but the bottom line is that they won all those games, and that's all that matters.
Manny, I also think that Colorado had about 150 more yards on offense than Miami, and they scored 25 more points. Imho, Miami's offense got lax when they got the 34-0 lead. Colorado's defense got lax when they got the 35-3 lead. BOth resulted in 23-26 point victories, so I do think the situations are comparable. Nebraska travels well, so they had quite a few fans at the CU game as well. I don't know what your problem is with me. I'm not saying that Miami isn't one heck of a team. I just think Nebraska is a terrible opponent, and a joke for the BCS. I would've liked to see Joey Harrington end his career with a championship. Would they have beaten Miami? Probably not, but I think they would've at least given them a good game. Don't you remember last year with Miami? Miami probably wouldn't have beaten OU, but most likely they could've at least scored and made it more competitive. Miami went undefeated throughout the season and won the national championship. But Nebraska was not near the right team to play in the championship game. My basic point is that Oregon got screwed in all of this, and I'm not so sure how that degrades Miami.
Marshall vs. East Carolina is not a major college football game. Give me a big game, with national title implications, that one team has come back from a 35-3 or 34-0 deficit. So a nationally televised bowl game isn't a major college football game? Then there have been only what 3 or 4 "major college football games" this year? Geezus... Miami beat Washington by 58 points. They went up to a Virginia Tech team who was barely ranked ahead of Washington and came away with a two point win. Is Virginia Tech 56 points better than Washington, or do you think that home field advantage had something to do with it? I'd bet Va Tech would've lost by about 50 in Miami too. Actually, Syracuse beat Virginia Tech head to head, but lost 59-0 to Miami in Miami. Virginia Tech lost by 2. Syracuse was clearly a better team than VT when they played head to head, but lost by 57 more points against Miami. You don't suppose home field had anything to do with that? Did you know that Miami led the VTech game 26-10 at the start of the 4th? They held on to win the game, they weren't outplayed the whole game only to come back in the last minute of the 4th quarter to eek out the victory like some other team. Also, Miami had not won a game at VTech in it's last 3/4 tries so the rivalry there is huge. In addition, VTech played Syracuse in October and played three more games before they played Miami in December AND had 2 weeks off to game plan while Miami had to play Washington. Miami and Texas played Washington in consecutive games. You're trying to act like you can cut and paste who played who at whenever and decide who wins. It doesn't really work that way because styles and matchups are very important. This is why your Texas argument is particularly faulty because Colorado is a smash mouth running team while Washington is more of a pro style passing attack and they had trouble with both styles. And you call Texas' defense overrated based on two games out of thirteen. Do you think it's fair to use stats from only those games? Cause for the whole season, Texas had the top defense in the country. If you want to go by the whole season stats, Texas was the best D in the country, and as you said there are no do-overs, asterisks, excuses, or conspiracies. Yeah, I think it's pretty fair because it's the first time they played anyone who was any good offensively. You think shutting out the worst teams in the country is a better indicator of a defense than getting lit up by a mediocre offense in a bowl game or Big12 championship? Heck even Oregon from the no defense playing Pac 10 held Colorado to 16 points. Miami not only held Washington to 7 points but also just smacked Nebraska around in a stadium 75% full of angry Husker fans. All those Husker fans should have been good for at least 24 points according to the home field advantage theory.
Cat: You know that I don't have a problem with you. However, if you think that I'm sensitive about Olajuwon leaving the Rockets, it pales in comparison to my Canes. I just got the impression that the tone of your posts weren't giving Miami enough credit. As I said earlier, I agree with you that Oregon got robbed and should have been there over Nebraska. However, Miami can say the same thing the previous year. However, I was just pointing out like Timing that your comparison of last night's game is not comparable to the Colorado game. It could have been a shutout if: 1) Miami doesn't jump offsides on 4th and 7 giving Nebraska another chance at 4th and 2. I thought that the guy got back in time, but the referees didn't see it that way. 2) The refs throw a flag against Nebraska for 2 illegal blocks in the back during that punt return for a TD. Also, don't forget about the Clinton Portis run that was called back due to a holding penalty that when they showed it on the replay, it looked questionable too. So, that could have made it 41-0. The fact remains that Miami was one extra point away from tying the Rose Bowl record of scoring the most points in a half. BTW - Miami outgained Nebraska 472-259 in offensive yardage. Colorado outgained Nebraska 582-552 in offensive yardage. Don't get fooled by the score which it sounds like to me is what happened to you. I don't think that I have to say anything else to prove that the Rose Bowl game and the Nebraska-Colorado game are not comparable.
