The good news? Our first three opponents, Akron, BC, and UCF, are ranked 90th, 29th, and 95th, respectively, by Sports Illustrated. In most years–at least in the past–this sort of ranking would practically guarantee a 3-0 start.

The bad news? Our own Nittany Lions are ranked 50th. No guarantees there.

This is certainly the worst initial ranking this turkey can remember. (And I was around in the early 60s, when it was a big deal for the boys to go to the Liberty Bowl.) We know that it is bad, bad, bad to be ranked #1 by Sports Illustrated because it represents the dreaded “Kiss of Death. ??????? ????????? ” However, this hiding in the middle of the pack thing–it’s just overkill.

I thought I would take a look at the rankings of our opponents for this year (excluding any potential bowl matchups). 1xbet So here it goes:

• Akron – 90
• BC – 29
• UCF – 95
• UW – 26
• Minnesota – 23
• Purdue – 28
• Iowa – 15
• tOSU – 8
• NWU – 58
• IU – 83
• Moo U. – 46

Doesn’t look too good, does it?

No matter how bogus the SI rankings usually are, the relative rankings are still pretty good indicators of how tough our schedule might be.

I’ll do a little simple-minded statistical analysis.

• Our rank: 50
• Average rank of our opponents: 45.5
• Opponents ranked higher than we are: 7
• Opponents ranked lower than we are: 4

So, if the geniuses at Sports Illustrated are exactly right, all other things being equal (which they rarely are), we’re in for a 4-7 season and no bowl. Hey, it would be one win better than last year! The Turkey, never known to be the consummate optimist, will refine this prediction by employing a little fuzzy logic best case analysis to establish his case.

Actually, I’m going to waffle. I believe that the team psyche is very fragile. If the Lions should happen to lose one of those two early season “gimme” games to Akron or UCF, then I have no doubts that we’re looking at a two or three win season. If they can win the first three, they’ll build confidence and maybe wind up with five or six wins–possibly qualifying for one of the lesser Texas bowl games or maybe even the Motor City Bowl. Most likely, they’ll wind up somewhere in-between, with a three or four win season.

What JoePa says: “I don’t think we are anywhere close to being good enough to be ready to feel really good about ourselves.”

I won’t look past Akron and UCF. They’re definitely not gimmes. ???? ??????? 365 If we lose to Akron…it’s really all over. (Painful to think of it, I know.) If we don’t, the BC game is the game of the season. If we win it, then every succeeding game must be played like it is November. We can’t regard any of our opponents as pushovers. We’re no longer feared. Opponents come to Happy Valley thinking they can win. This must be reversed! I want to believe! Show me something!

This season, the Big Ten will institute a trial of instant replay reviewing of close calls made by on field officials. Other NCAA conferences may choose to adopt the system if the Big Ten trial is successful. ????? ??? ?? ??????

Clearly, JoePa, who had been complaining loudly about blown calls costing the Lions close games, exerted some influence over the decision by the conference.

The replay review will be done upstairs, in the booth. If one of the replay officials sees something on the field that is questionable, he’ll communicate wirelessly with the official timer on the field. ????? ???? ???? There will be no whining for reviews by the coaches on the field–this is completely in the hands of the officials. In that way and a couple of others, the NCAA review procedure will differ from that of the NFL. One other big difference is that the review will take place entirely in the booth and will use only the regular TV coverage for replays. On the other hand, both the NFL and NCAA require that a review be initiated before the next play begins. They also both require that the replay official sees indisputable visual evidence before a call can be overturned.

Is this good or bad? Surely, we have all seen bad calls–decisions by officials on the field that adversely affect the eventual outcome of a game that could have, at best, gone either way. I often hear that over time, bad calls even out. This may be true, but over what length of time? Longer than one game, to be sure. Statistical clustering of lots of bad calls that go against a particular team in a single game can certainly change the outcome of that game. In a 13 game season, one game can mean the difference between a national champion and an also-ran or, at the other end of the scale, between getting into a bowl and not getting into a bowl. So, I’m saying that it’s a good thing, right? ??? ????? ????? Not so fast, you who dine on my cousins on Thanksgiving! Those of you who know the Turkey know that he equivocates.

My main concern about this imposition of technology is the effect it will have on the flow of the game. Already, we have to deal with obnoxiously long and frequent TV commercial breaks. Now, we will add the occasional 90-second (which becomes four minutes) break for a play review. If we feel the pain and boredom sitting on our duffs, just think of how those players must feel standing around during these breaks with sore and cramping muscles. The Big Ten does not think that replay will add signifcantly to the burden. Their pilot program last season yielded the subjective statistics that out of about 10,800 plays, 50 would have been reviewed. This is fewer than one per game. So, I guess it is worth a try. Other conferences will be watching, and I hold no doubt that next year, we will see a broad scale implementation of this system.