Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2005 ... ing_QB.htm

Funny too that Betts is rated a better pro prospect than Gradkowski.

Shades of Marc Bulger?? Are you kidding me?? The guy I buy car insurance from reminds me of marc bulger, not Omar. In 3 years, Omar will be about 5 times better than marc friggin bulger.

Okay, where did CFN get Omar's line from that the use in that article? What....Omar's numbers weren't good enough so they had to add few more touchdowns? Did they perhaps add the Memphis game in twice?

2004 Numbers – 328-of-490 for 4,347 yards, 45 TDs and 4 INTs – 113 rushes for 389 yards and 6 TDs

Actual 2004 numbers - 309-462 for 4002 yards, 41 TDs and 4 INTs - 95 rushes for 415 yards and 4 TDs

UK Peregrine wrote:Okay, where did CFN get Omar's line from that the use in that article? What....Omar's numbers weren't good enough so they had to add few more touchdowns? Did they perhaps add the Memphis game in twice?

2004 Numbers – 328-of-490 for 4,347 yards, 45 TDs and 4 INTs – 113 rushes for 389 yards and 6 TDs

Actual 2004 numbers - 309-462 for 4002 yards, 41 TDs and 4 INTs - 95 rushes for 415 yards and 4 TDs

CFN should have an asterisk at the bottom of every page saying 'maybe entirely wrong'.

Warthog wrote:http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2005 ... ing_QB.htm

Funny too that Betts is rated a better pro prospect than Gradkowski.

But the thing that kills me is Gradkowski has "the Rings".

We MUST win the MAC in 2005....no excuses.

Falconfreak90 wrote:
But the thing that kills me is Gradkowski has "the Rings".

We MUST win the MAC in 2005....no excuses.

I want the MACC ring too, but you can also say Gradkowski doesn't have one of these.

kdog27 wrote:

UK Peregrine wrote:Okay, where did CFN get Omar's line from that the use in that article? What....Omar's numbers weren't good enough so they had to add few more touchdowns? Did they perhaps add the Memphis game in twice?

2004 Numbers – 328-of-490 for 4,347 yards, 45 TDs and 4 INTs – 113 rushes for 389 yards and 6 TDs

Actual 2004 numbers - 309-462 for 4002 yards, 41 TDs and 4 INTs - 95 rushes for 415 yards and 4 TDs

CFN should have an asterisk at the bottom of every page saying 'maybe entirely wrong'.

Looks like they used his total yards and TDs including rushing instead of just the passing numbers.

UK Peregrine wrote:

Falconfreak90 wrote:
But the thing that kills me is Gradkowski has "the Rings".

We MUST win the MAC in 2005....no excuses.

I want the MACC ring too, but you can also say Gradkowski doesn't have one of these.

Bowl games are great, but in the end winning the GMAC & Motor City Bowls is something akin to a Jay Leno joke. These bowls mean next to nothing on the college football landscape.

I'd trade both of those bowl wins for a single MAC championship in a heartbeat. If you want national respect you do so by winning your conference, not winning bowl games.

hammb wrote:

UK Peregrine wrote:

Falconfreak90 wrote:
But the thing that kills me is Gradkowski has "the Rings".

We MUST win the MAC in 2005....no excuses.

I want the MACC ring too, but you can also say Gradkowski doesn't have one of these.

Bowl games are great, but in the end winning the GMAC & Motor City Bowls is something akin to a Jay Leno joke. These bowls mean next to nothing on the college football landscape.

I'd trade both of those bowl wins for a single MAC championship in a heartbeat. If you want national respect you do so by winning your conference, not winning bowl games.

I couldn't agree more hammb. A bowl game is a great reward for a successful season...but even winning the bowl doesn't mean as much WITHOUT the Conference Title.

UT got blown out by UConn in the MCB but they still won the MAC...and that is difficult to stomach.

Really? I'll take the bowl wins over the MAC. The MAC means less nationally than winning a bowl game against a "larger" opponenet like a Memphis or Northwestern (Big 10!). UT won the MAC and got buried in the polls, we won the GMAC bowl and wound up a hair outside the top 25. National rankings are the be all, end all in college sports.

To quote Dave Mason..."it's only you and me and we just disagree...."

(I left out the ooowie ooo whoa whoa whoa)

I'm greedy, I want both a MAC championship and a bowl victory.

Winning the MACC has always been BG's goal, and I think everyone desperately wants a MACC for our own. But in terms of national recognition, I agree with Flipper. A bowl game does so much more than a MACC. BG made a lasting impression on Memphis fans and to a lesser extent C-USA fans by beating the Tigers. UT also made a lasting impression on UConn fans, albeit the converse. The MAC Championship is great, but my guess is the nation as a whole thinks no higher of UT than BG because they won the MACC. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the average fan would mistakenly say BG won the MACC simply because a bowl win leaves a lasting impression on the more casual fan. Perception is reality, and to most college fans I would think they look upon BG as the brightest star in the MAC. That's sound really corny, but it kind of works.

I'm with Flipper on this one.. who cares about a mac title when the whole nation sees 3 horrendous losses 2 being on national tv..that's what people around the nation remember about Toledo. They say "Yeah Toledo aren't they the team that got crushed 63-14 and 63-21 by Minnesota and Kansas and then emarrassed by Connecticut in their bowl game? They think of BG keeping it close with Oklahoma and winning an exciting bowl game.

Warthog wrote:I'm greedy, I want both a MAC championship and a bowl victory.

I'll join ya on that one WH!

Let's get BOTH this year.

Two points:

1) I'll take the bowl wins over UT's "success" any day of the week. The nation was treated to their 63-21 loss to that powerhouse Minnesota squad and a 39-10 shellacking at the hands of a program in its very first bowl game ever. Those defeats (especially UCONN) torpedoed them in the polls and likely did irreparable damage to their national reputation. It also might have even sullied the candidacy of their AD, who lost out to some obscure conference commisioner from the Big Nowhere Conference for the TCU job.

2) I think it would be best to appreciate the phenomenal coverage given to us by CFN, the Sporting News and other national outlets and not get too bogged down in statistical minutia or odd player comparisons. Bulger did make the Pro Bowl in 2003 operating a variation of the spread offense. They're promoting Omar and BG to the nation and I'm grateful for the exposure.