Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Iowa is in trouble. Their ENTIRE offensive playbook got released online. I’m not sure how they are going to achieve their goal of 25 points per game when all of their opponents have all their plays. Their defense is going to have to put up some points to reach that goal

Ok, so Stanford people are snobs relative to us B1G folks.

Fine, Michigan people are snobs relative to a lot of other schools.

I was once in the Horseshoe watching the Buckeyes beat the snot out of the Badgers when a visiting fan loudly referred to the host academic institution as a "Community College". So Wisconsin people can be snobs too.

You might say I'm a snob relative to Oregon.

That is all well and good, but I don't see myself as a snob, I see myself as a calculating realist. Here, once again, is the full list of research spending by institutions:

• 3, 1.6B Michigan
• 5, 1.5B, Washington
• 6, 1.5B, UCLA
• 8, 1.4B, Wisconsin
• 9. 1.3B, Stanford
• 12, 1.2B, Ohio State
• 17, 1.1B, Maryland
• 22, 1.1B, Minnesota
• 26, 971M, Penn State
• 28, 956M, USC
• 30, 913M, Northwestern
• 37, 731M, Illinois
• 39, 710M, Michigan State
• 40, 695M, Indiana
• 41, 679M, Purdue
• 45, 644M, Rutgers
• 50, 554M, Iowa
• 87, 307M, Nebraska (their Medical center is another $201M, reported separately)
• 149, 139M, Oregon

Which snobs are right and which ones are just talk?

That's weird since Fox has the noon ET game every week and it's not that likely Wash and Ore will play in the noon game. You would think NBC and CBS would be the ones paying more.

On the other hand,  I guess it does create more overall games for NBC and CBS and Fox and FS1 to choose from. 

Drove it from Downtown Chicago to the Santa Monica Pier.

Fox also owns half of the BTN. BTN could have a really good night game every Saturday.

I think there is an actual historical reason for that and most modern Californians probably don't know it.

I *THINK* the reason is that parts of California's Interstate system predate to Federal Interstate Highway System. When, for example, the San Bernardino Freeway was built, there was no US numbering system for interstates because there were no Federal Interstates. Consequently, rather than being numbered, they were originally known by names instead.

AFAIK, the freeways in the LA area were typically named based on where they took you from LA. Ie, the San Bernardino Freeway goes out to . . . San Bernardino. There was also a Pasadena Freeway that was part of a reroute of Route 66 and went to . . . Pasadena.

I *THINK* that when the Federal Interstate Highway System numbered all these preexisting California highways, the locals probably at first ignored the numbers and just kept using their names. Over time there has been a gradual switch to the numbers but the "The" remains as a holdover from when they were:

• The San Bernardino Freeway
• The Pasadena Freeway
• Etc.

I think there is an actual historical reason for that and most modern Californians probably don't know it.

I *THINK* the reason is that parts of California's Interstate system predate to Federal Interstate Highway System. When, for example, the San Bernardino Freeway was built, there was no US numbering system for interstates because there were no Federal Interstates. Consequently, rather than being numbered, they were originally known by names instead.

AFAIK, the freeways in the LA area were typically named based on where they took you from LA. Ie, the San Bernardino Freeway goes out to . . . San Bernardino. There was also a Pasadena Freeway that was part of a reroute of Route 66 and went to . . . Pasadena.

I *THINK* that when the Federal Interstate Highway System numbered all these preexisting California highways, the locals probably at first ignored the numbers and just kept using their names. Over time there has been a gradual switch to the numbers but the "The" remains as a holdover from when they were:

• The San Bernardino Freeway
• The Pasadena Freeway
• Etc.