HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brook@l42bb.jsc.nasa.gov (Mike Brookover))
Subject: Re: Marsee Ratings & Predictions for 8/29/92
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:16:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.064659.4370@newstand.syr.edu> demarsee@rodan.acs.syr.edu
(Darryl E. Marsee) writes:
>OK folks ... it's that time again ... here are the Marsee computer ratings for

>the preseason (which are based on last season's final ratings), plus
predictions
>for the week ending 8/29/92.
>
>   THE MARSEE I-A PRE-SEASON COLLEGE FOOTBALL RANKINGS FOR THE 1992 SEASON
>
>       (Power ratings in parenthesis - ties broken by defensive rating)
>
>  1. WASHINGTON     (754)
>  2. PENN STATE     (713)
>  3. MIAMI          (706)
>  4. MICHIGAN       (695)
>  5. OKLAHOMA       (689)
>  6. FLORIDA STATE  (687)
>  7. CALIFORNIA     (679)
>  8. NEBRASKA       (677)
>  9. STANFORD       (676)
> 10. TEXAS A&M      (669)  
>
>     THE MARSEE I-A COLLEGE FOOTBALL PREDICTIONS FOR WEEKEND OF 08/29/92
>
>                          Note:  Home Team In CAPS
>
>                  iowa           over n carolina st  by   2
>
>                  stanford       over texas a&m      by   1
>

What criteria are these computer rankings based on.  I would be interested
to see the breakdown of offense stats v. deffense stats.  Also, are the
predictions based on the computer results or your own guess.  Just curious.

mgb
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
From: saunders@luther.che.wisc.edu (Brian E. Saunders)
Subject: Re: The Schembechler Syndrome
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:39:49 CDT

If this thread doesn't stop, I will update my "Bo Schembechler" essay and
repost it.
-- 

Brian E. Saunders			saunders@luther.che.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
From: lauson@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Patrick W Lauson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: r.s.f.c. Preseason Poll
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:30:40 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <92239.132928C31801AG@wuvmd.wustl.edu> C31801AG@WUVMD (Bapi Gupta) writes:
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Rec.Sport.Football.College newsgroup poll                                   |
>| Compiled 08-26-1992                                  Rank Frequencies       |
>|--------------------------+----------+-------+-------------------------------|
>|                          |  1 9 9 1 | Point |           1 11111 11112 22222 |
>| Rank College             |  W  L  T | Total | 12345 67890 12345 67890 12345 |
>|--------------------------+----------+-------+-------------------------------|
>|  18. Ohio State          |  8  4  0 |   144 | ..1.1 ..... ..111 .1222 12... |
                                                   ^ ^
                                                   ^ ^

Ah yes.  A couple die-hard Buckeye fans, eh?  Even _I_ wouldn't have ranked
them that high....  But then again, Notre Dame got some first place votes, too.

P.S.  Please don't hack on my .sig, I haven't changed it yet....
            
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
| Pat Lawson                     :  Go Buckeyes!!!!!!            |
| lauson@en.ecn.purdue.edu       :    Repeat as Big-10 Champs!!! |
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dostalik@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Bill Dostalik)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Shameless OU woof
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:26:55 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

Woof.

    OOOO                                                        
   O    O                                         |   Bill Dostalik
   O  U O  U          Oklahoma Sooners            |                
   O  U O  U  National College Football Champions |  
    OOOO   U     1950 1955 1956 1974 1975 1985    |  dostalik@utdallas.edu  
      U    U                                      | 
       UUUU        Cale Gundy for Heisman.        |  "Oh, yeah?"  "Yeah."
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
From: richard@ods.com (Richard Thompson)
Subject: Re: Pigskin Classic
Organization: Optical Data Systems, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:46:54 GMT

Michael Noonan (noonan@icd3) wrote:
: :
: : Stanford that couldn't get a first down until *after* A&M had scored?
: : What makes you think they would have gotten anywhere if the call
: : had gone the other way?
: 
: They would have gotten fifteen yards.  I think that would have helped
: a little, don't you think.  I don't remember the yards to go, but I
: think that would have given them a first down and perhaps a little
: momentum.
 
In college football, pass interference is a 15 yard penalty, if the
foul occurs 15 yards beyond the line of scrimmage (or further).
Otherwise, the ball is placed at the spot of the foul, and the
offense is given an automatic first down.  On the play in question,
Stanford would have gotten a first down at the spot of the foul, which
would have netted the Cardinal about 2-3 yards, IF pass interference
had been called.  IMO, the db for A&M made an outstanding play on the 
ball, and the ref was correct in not making a call. However, the ref
should have called the pass incomplete (obviously).     
-- 
Richard Thompson
richard@ods.com 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
From: joconnor@evax12.eng.fsu.edu (JAMES P O)
Subject: acc football fsu style
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Organization: Florida State University Computing Center
Distribution:  usa
Date: 25 AUG 92 12:37:57    

     Back in December when the first FSU basketball season in the ACC,
fans and  the press said veteran ACC schools would help FSU in basketball
and vice versa FSU would help the ACC in football and baseball. How wrong 
they were! We finished second in the regular season, third in ACC tourny.
and made it to the sweet 16 after a long haitus (sp?). Well now its time 
for football, and we are expected to "womp" all over the other schools.
I say watch out, The veteran ACC schools might pull the upset on us as we 
did to UNC back in December on thier court! So don't be surprized if 
Sept 6ths sport section of the paper says:


      DUKIES WIN! DUKIES WIN!
      Blue Devils welcome the Noles to the ACC with a stunning upset
      at "under construction" Cambell stadium in Tallahassee.



James O'Connor                    DUKE BLUE DEVILS
Mech Engineering                         VS
FAMU/FSU College of Engineering  >>>----NOLES---->
EVAX12:JOCONNOR                  SEPT 5    7:00
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Re: ND's DuBose Situation
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:50:46 GMT


In article <BILLMS.92Sep3081816@z.eecs.umich.edu> billms@eecs.umich.edu (Willia
m Mangione-Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.233749.19937@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sschudt@magnus.ac
s.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
>
>It is against the NCAA rules for athelets to benefit financially because of
>their sports skills.  Thats why they don't pay them, they give them
>scholarships.  Thats why you can't sign an agent.  Thats why you can't accept
>cash gifts.  The idea, right or wrong, that drives these rules is that the
>players should be amateurs.
>
>Dubose got a 25k car loan, no money down and no payments for one year, when
>the whole sum comes do immediately.  He is reported to have said that that he
>will pay it off with his salary from the NFL.  I don't know if this is
>*right* or *wrong* in an absolute sence, but it is absolutely clear to be a
>violation of both the letter and spirt of the NCAA rules.  Given that, and
>the allegations of the earlier high school loan, I thought the penalty was an
>amazingly light slap.
>

NCAA director of eligibility Janet Justis said, (Quote from USA Today - they 
paraphrased her,)"An inquiry into a separate auto loan DuBose received from a 
Seattle bank uncovered no violation."

DuBose was suspended ONLY for the $600.00 loan from the Seattle couple and has 
been ordered to pay it back.

Notre Dame isn't appealing, of course, because the school had already suspended
him.  If they appealed, I believe that he would be allowed to play.

The USA Today is from Wednesday, Sept. 2.

Seeya!
-- 
           Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
      Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
             Win Twins!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
From: chee1jz@Rosie.UH.EDU
Subject: Re: Where the pro-ACC stand ends
Reply-To: chee1jz@Rosie.UH.EDU
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:26:11 GMT

In article <Btxnpz.FA9@encore.com>, jfawcett@encore.com (Jason Fawcett) writes:
>chee1jz@Rosie.UH.EDU writes:
>
>
>
>>	But some big Tallahassee rednecks started a couple of fights outside
>>tigertown, making the 15.5 hour drive worthwhile.
>
>Now this is a example of pure BS.  Sour grapes......  
>

	No joke, I went to TTT that night, only to see the police have to 
manhandle two seminoles.  They were too big for the bouncer to handle.  It's
not a typical sight.  
	Besides, it was a great game win or lose. Now the Georgia games of 
83 & 84 ....
	Larry Fore			COMMS:
					chee1jz@jetson.uh.edu
					lbfore@uh.edu
					(713) 743-4338
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: A&M BEATS BILL WALSH...er, I mean, STANFORD!!!
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:33:02 GMT
Followup-To: rec.sport.football.college
Organization: Murasami Labs

Doug Fierro wrote [but it echo's a lot stanford folx thoughts]:

>   The Aggies are damn lucky to pull that one out, especially on that very
> bad call where the Aggie defense guy not only was on top of the Stanford
> receiver before he touched the ball, but then the guy falls on the ground
> on top of the ball and it is ruled an interception.

It didn't make a difference in the game, now did it? As I said before, it's
not like your offense would have *done* anything with it - they couldn't
manage a first down in the second half until *after* A&M had tied the game.

Further, $tanfraud had 3 opportunities early to put A&M away - fumble,
touch
down and missed field goal where the results. If you have to whine about
something, whine about that - blown opportunities. 

James
From: mm42@prism.gatech.EDU (Mark Mitchell)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: Kickoff classic Iowa-NCSU
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:43:09 GMT
Organization: Ramblin' Wrecks from Georgia Tech

rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) wrote:
}
}Well, Njan, ill take it even further. Iowa is a big time program, whereas
}NCSU is an Acc upstart.

And you can stop right there!  Any ACC team in the Kickoff Classic is
going to get creamed - that is a given.  (You see - the ACC is opposed
to this lengthening of the season through extra games.  Now they could
just sit back and not participate, but that is passive resistance.  Instead
the ACC schools have decided to employ active sabotage by getting stomped
and lowering the ratings.  Yeah, that's the ticket! ;-)

-- 
Mark Mitchell           Georgia Tech            mm42@prism.gatech.edu
"Distant cousins, there's a limited supply ...
                                           big-eyed beans from Venus!"
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: A&M BEATS BILL WALSH...er, I mean, STANFORD!!!
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:14:42 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <stricher-280892073054@stayman.ocean.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>Doug Fierro wrote [but it echo's a lot stanford folx thoughts]:
>
>>   The Aggies are damn lucky to pull that one out, especially on that very
>> bad call where the Aggie defense guy not only was on top of the Stanford
>> receiver before he touched the ball, but then the guy falls on the ground
>> on top of the ball and it is ruled an interception.
>
>It didn't make a difference in the game, now did it? As I said before, it's
>not like your offense would have *done* anything with it - they couldn't
>manage a first down in the second half until *after* A&M had tied the game.
>
>Further, $tanfraud had 3 opportunities early to put A&M away - fumble,
>touch
>down and missed field goal where the results. If you have to whine about
>something, whine about that - blown opportunities. 
>
>James


  Hey moron,

  Did I ever say Stanfraud was the team I was rooting for?  No.  In fact
a Stanfraud loss doesn't bother me one bit, except I wish the loss was
against a Pac-10 team instead.  I was just making an unbiased observation 
since I was a neutral observer- not whining.  I think the mug & steal play 
made a difference, since Stanfraud was driving on A&M territory, and even if 
they would have walked away from the drive with a field goal it would have 
tied the game.


  Doug

-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
From: rowdy@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (robert.dieckmann)
Subject: BIG EAST, Weekly Preview for 9-5-92
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:53:38 GMT


The Big East Football Season goes into full throttle 
this Saturday with all teams scheduled to play.  The 
following is a preview.

Rutgers at Boston College: (Conference Game of the Week).
--------------------------
Both teams are billed as "on the rise."   Both are aiming
at 8-3 records, third place in the conference, and a possible
bowl bid.  And now they start off against each other.
Rutgers' weak point is the offensive line and it will
go against BC's strong point, the defensive front seven.
However the BC secondary is suspect and Fortay should
be able to get passes to RU's talented receiving corps.
Conversely, Foley of BC will have to throw into RU's strongest
unit, the defensive secondary.  RU does well against BC,
leading the series 6-5.  Also, RU has won 4 of 5 at BC.
PREDICTION: Rutgers 24, Boston College 17.

Miami at Iowa (non-Conference Game of the Week).
------------------------------------------------
A week ago we were wondering if Iowa's pasting of NCSU
would give them an edge in hosting the MNC Miami Hurricanes.
Now we wonder how overrated is Iowa.  NCSU exposed a lot 
of weaknesses that are being exploited in the film room
(wherever Miami is practicing these days).  Iowa does have
a talented QB and Miami doesn't ahve the best secondary 
around, but that's about it.  Otherwise, Miami is ready
to storm through the corn fields. 
PREDICTION:  Miami 35, Iowa 14.

Syracuse at East Carolina
-------------------------
Last year ECU beat the Orangemen at Syracuse.  ECU went on
to a 10-1 record, Syracuse went to 9-2.  However, in the mean
time, ECU graduated many of its key players (coach too) while
Syracuse returns their top players.  Also, Syracuse has been
a top team for years while last year's ECU team enjoyed their
time at the Prince's Ball, but now it's back to work.  Look
for Syracuse's Marvin Graves (QB) and Qadry Ismail (WR, KR)
to exploit a suspect ECU defense.  Syracuse gets revenge.
PREDICTION:  Syracuse 31, East Carolina 10.


Pittsburgh, Temple, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia
all host Division 1-AA teams.  What can you say?  This is
a scrimmage for these teams as they get a win to start off
the season on the right foot.  Maybe Iowa wishes they had done the
same?  My cynicism also says that teams schedule their patsies
early so that if a player screws up during the spring practice,
summer recess, or fall camp, and the NCAA suspends them for the
first game or two....
PREDICTIONS: 4 romps by the Home Teams.


Tim Pitts will resume the Big East Weekly Previews Next Week.
-- 
"Listen up son, and pay attention.   |  Bob Dieckmann (rwd@mtfme.att.com)
How ya' gonna learn anything if you  |  GO: Mets (& dear old Rutgers)
always got your head in a book?"     |  I probably should've included smileys.
                -- Foghorn Leghorn   |  **usual disclaimer**
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
From: rszczerb@okeefe.helios.nd.edu (Robert Szczerba)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: IOWA FALLS 14-24
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:16:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <BILLMS.92Sep1113910@z.eecs.umich.edu> billms@eecs.umich.edu (William Mangione-Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.152200.28456@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
>
>   In article <BILLMS.92Sep1100646@z.eecs.umich.edu> billms@eecs.umich.edu (Willia
>   m Mangione-Smith) writes:
>   >In article <1992Sep1.135535.27339@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sschudt@magnus.ac
>   s.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
>   >
>   >
>   >>   Does anyone remember 1988?  '90?  Oh yea, I forgot.  Miami
>   >>   also lost to BYU in '90.  They were depressed after that, they lost their
>   >>   senses and kicked to The Rocket.
>   >>
>   >>  See you in the Fiesta Bowl.  That is, if you can get by Penn State.  ;)
>   >>
>   >I think you will see Steve's team much sooner than that, Susan.  If you read
>   >the woof you will know.  His team doesn't play Penn State.
>   >
>   >Bill
>
>   Is his team the one that kicked to The Rocket TWICE? ;)
>
>Still living through past glory, huh?  Well, ok, I guess after last year, and
>what with the sorry prospects for 1992, that makes sence.
>
>Yes, his team kicked to the rocket twice, and you should be very thankful
>that they did.  The rest of the rocket's team was outmatched, and desperately
>needed the help, if I remember correctly.
>
>Bill
>--

As I recall, Lou Holtz didn't even bother to send his offense out on to
the field because he realized that Rocket could beat the mighty
Maize and Blue single-handedly ... which he did.  I really wanted to see them
kick off to him a third time.  I was at Michigan Stadium for the game and
I never heard 100,000 people so quiet after Rocket ran back the
second one

 - Rob
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: Stanford vs. A&M (was Re: ATM Graduation Rates)
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:49:48 GMT
Distribution: na

Richard Han writes

+ 2) Stanford's offense is multi-faceted PAC-10 and vintage 49er thanks to 
+ Walsh. The A&M defense probably will not see anything like its complexity
+ in its Southwest Conference schedule.  

I beg to differ. UHouston ran/runs a Run-N-Shoot style offense, which
is probably as complex as one can get. They also saw FSU's vaunted
offense in action in their *last* game.

James
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
From: paladin@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jason Gische)
Subject: Re: Stanford?
Keywords: hello?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 17:01:29 GMT

So, what to say about that game?
I must admit I was pretty damn impressed with the Aggie defense after the 
first drive.  Of course, so were they.  :)
I'm not particularly happy with the way Stanford played the game, though.  I
mean, overall, it was a good game. I think they proved beyond a shaow of
a doubt that they can play with anyone.  They just made a few bad plays whic
cost them the game:
	-Poor coverage on A&M's only TD.  Had the defender turned to the bal
	he could have knocked it down.
	-Stenstrom throwing that intereception.  Ugly.
	-That missed sack of Granger because the defender went at his head
	which resulted in a 32 yard run.
It was just frustrating to watch them dominate the first half (and boys, I
mean dominate) yet only come away with 7 points.  I knew we were in trouble
then.  
I'd like to make one other comment.  Please stop harping on Bill Walsh.  This
is a damn good football team.  the defense comes to play, and the offense will
only get better as the season goes along and Stenstrom learns the system.
Bill Walsh is an excellent coach, but I wish the goddam media would stop
referring to the team as Walsh rather than Stanford.  We can't help the hype.
Just give the team the respect it deserves.
Damn, I'm beginning to sound like that NCSU guy now.  :)
-Jason Gische
Go Cardinal

ps.  most commonly used word of the telecast, by far:  "swarm"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
From: goodrich@lynx.larc.nasa.gov (Mike Goodrich)
Subject: Re: Why so many Va Tech woofers?
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:56:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.010247.28716@chpc.utexas.edu>, boisseau@chpc.utexas.edu (John R. Boisseau (Jay)) writes:
|> In article <Bu0urF.J2G@acsu.buffalo.edu> v262xxve@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Timothy C Pitts) writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep3.193921.3109@chpc.utexas.edu>, boisseau@chpc.utexas.edu (John R. Boisseau (Jay)) writes...
|> 
|> [complete results deleted for brevity--something I'm not known for--but
|> thanks for posting them!]
|> 
|> >                               Dogs             Decent teams
|> >        Top 25 teams:     (5 or less wins):  (7+ wins, I-A only):
|> >        UVA      VaTech    UVA     VaTech     UVA      VaTech
|> >1991     2         4        5        3         4         5
|> >1990     2         3        3        2         3         6
|> >1989     2         4        3        3         5         5
|> >Total    6        11       11        8        12        16
|> >
|> 
|> Two corrections to this table.
|> (1) Add ND to UVa list of ranked opponents for 1989
|> (2) Subtract UVa from Tech's list of ranked opponents for 1989 and 1990--if
|>     we are comparing the relative strength of each team's schedule, you can't
|>     give Tech credit for playing UVa (ranked). It isn't UVa's fault that
|>     Tech wasn't ranked each of those years. Also suvtract VT from UVa's
|>      list of "dogs" or "decent teams", as relevant...

Remark (2) does not follow at all. If Podunk plays Notre Dame, then ND's schedule
is lighter and Podunk's heavier because of it. The relative strength of the schedules
in NO WAY depends on the fact that they are mutual opponents, only on the
strength of the opponents...

|> 
|> Making these corrections, we see that the schedules were ALMOST
|> IDENTICAL in 1989 and 1990.


This conclusion is thus based on a FALSE premiss...


...mike
From: mm42@prism.gatech.EDU (Mark Mitchell)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: ACC Predictions 9/5/92
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:12:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ramblin' Wrecks from Georgia Tech

boisseau@chpc.utexas.edu (John R. Boisseau (Jay)) wrote:
}
}                                                           I'm not sure
}Virginia will get more than 17 points in this one (they rarely break this
}mark in Sept. it seems).

You're forgetting September 1990, Jay!  59 points against Kansas,
20 points against Clem(p)son, and 56 points against Navy.  I'm telling
you, they're going to score 28 points on Maryland.  I was impressed with
Bobby Goodman against Tech last year, and the Maryland defense has been
practicing against the run-and-shoot.  They're not going to be ready
for UVa's power running game or Goodman's mobility.

-- 
Mark Mitchell           Georgia Tech            mm42@prism.gatech.edu

     "I love codfish, I love codfish, I love codfish balls!"