talk about anticlimatic. no way this game lives up to last night's godaddy.com bowl. obviously that was the true national championship game.
for guys who hate reading, i'll cut to the chase - i'm playing alabama.
i just heard a huge cheer from all nd bettors.
here is the national rank in scoring offense for nd's opponents, starting with the first game of the season against navy:
82
64
108
57
49
70
64
15
75
109
114
40 (this was usc with a qb making his first start)
you'd be hard pressed to find a group of weaker offenses in a 12-game schedule. only one team better than 40th.
let's break down some of their wins:
they beat purdue at home. by 3.
despite not trailing by more than 14 until the closing minutes of the game, michigan st thought it was a good idea to have a qb making his 3rd start throw the ball 45 times. le'veon bell only got 19 carries. good game plan there.
denard robinson threw 4 INTs. he's good like that.
they faced a stanford qb making only his 2nd road start. and they still had to go to OT to win.
they beat byu at home. by 3.
they beat pitt at home. by 3. in triple OT.
don't get me wrong. any team that wins every one of their games is good. i'm just saying they caught some serious breaks along the way.
does anyone think alabama wouldn't have gone 12-0 against that schedule? with a LOT fewer close games?
as much as i hate the 'common opponent' argument, both these teams played michigan only 3 weeks apart, so the comparison is somewhat valid. remember that first game of the season? alabama blew out michigan 41-14 on a neutral field. 3 weeks later, tommy rees had to bail out golson, who was SUCKING, and the irish held on to a 13-6 win.
both teams are very strong against the run, duh, and both are somewhat vulnerable to the pass. but who do you trust more to be able to make plays throwing the ball, golson or mccarron?
notre dame had a very, very good season. obviously. but they are not ready to play at the level of alabama.
i think alabama sends that message tonight.
alabama (-10) 2 units.
for guys who hate reading, i'll cut to the chase - i'm playing alabama.
i just heard a huge cheer from all nd bettors.
here is the national rank in scoring offense for nd's opponents, starting with the first game of the season against navy:
82
64
108
57
49
70
64
15
75
109
114
40 (this was usc with a qb making his first start)
you'd be hard pressed to find a group of weaker offenses in a 12-game schedule. only one team better than 40th.
let's break down some of their wins:
they beat purdue at home. by 3.
despite not trailing by more than 14 until the closing minutes of the game, michigan st thought it was a good idea to have a qb making his 3rd start throw the ball 45 times. le'veon bell only got 19 carries. good game plan there.
denard robinson threw 4 INTs. he's good like that.
they faced a stanford qb making only his 2nd road start. and they still had to go to OT to win.
they beat byu at home. by 3.
they beat pitt at home. by 3. in triple OT.
don't get me wrong. any team that wins every one of their games is good. i'm just saying they caught some serious breaks along the way.
does anyone think alabama wouldn't have gone 12-0 against that schedule? with a LOT fewer close games?
as much as i hate the 'common opponent' argument, both these teams played michigan only 3 weeks apart, so the comparison is somewhat valid. remember that first game of the season? alabama blew out michigan 41-14 on a neutral field. 3 weeks later, tommy rees had to bail out golson, who was SUCKING, and the irish held on to a 13-6 win.
both teams are very strong against the run, duh, and both are somewhat vulnerable to the pass. but who do you trust more to be able to make plays throwing the ball, golson or mccarron?
notre dame had a very, very good season. obviously. but they are not ready to play at the level of alabama.
i think alabama sends that message tonight.
alabama (-10) 2 units.
