Washington Huskies Football: NCAA Football 12 Predicts Buffs Upset UW
A common sports refrain is that games are not played on paper.
In the case of my XBox 360, even predicting the outcome of a simulated game is useless because games are decided on the field.
In this week's installment of an ongoing series, NCAA Football 12 gave a wild prediction for Saturday's game between Washington and visiting Colorado.
Colorado over Washington, 35-0.
Many believe the Huskies will win on Saturday by two touchdowns; my XBox 360's bold simulation is a sobering reminder that nothing in the Pac-12 is a given.
Just ask Mike Stoops.
In the simulation, five turnovers sunk UW during a blustery, rainy game. The Huskies couldn't seem to hold on to the football in the wet weather, losing three fumbles.
The Saturday forecast calls for similar conditions. This is something that will either benefit those used to the rain (Washington), or it will level the playing field for a less talented/deep team (Colorado).
The Buffaloes will need plenty of offense to keep up with Washington's attack.
Which prediction do you like for the upcoming Colorado vs. Washington game?
Colorado will lean heavily on their diminutive running back, Rodney Stewart, as they try to fill the void left by injured receiver, Paul Richardson. Unfortunately for Colorado, UW's run defense has been stout during conference play.
Coming off a bye week, UW has its players rested and healed. Washington should return starters John Timu and Nate Fellner on defense, and expect quarterback Keith Price to show added mobility this week.
Like most out there, I expect UW to score early and often against Colorado's depleted secondary, and Richardson's injury eliminates one of CU's biggest scoring threats.
I think Austin Seferian-Jenkins catches a long bomb and Nick Montana gets his first snaps of the season when the UW victory is secure.
Washington wins 38-20.
Xbox Predictions this season: 2-3
Beswick Predictions this season: 3-2
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?