hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 29, 2011 13:46:40 GMT -5
I am curious how you all feel about the realignment. I know there are other threads about which team(s) this or that particular conference should go after. But that's not what I'm asking. Obviously, we all know that "it's all about the money." That being said, you could paraphrase that "it's all about the football." Given that's the case, do you think it's better to sort of openly admit that and address that issue "once and for all," and agressively pursue a basketball conference? And really, I guess I'm asking 2 questions. Since money is one of, if not the ultimate motivation, I don't know that hypotheticals which disregard the effect of the dollar can even be defined. But for argument's sake:
1. Aside from the drive of the dollar, would you think it best for Georgetown and BE basketball in general, to focus on standing on its own and to really try to become a hoops only conference? Would a conference of the St. Johns, Georgetowns, Providences, Depauls, Seton Halls etc..., be "ideal" if it could be worked out financially?
2. With the obvious understanding of the almighty dollar, do you think it's in Georgetown Basketball's best interests to work towards a competitive conference in both football and basketball, even though the gridiron programs of institutions like Georgetown will presumably forever be at a huge disadvantage? I'm not asking if you want G'town to take the plunge and move to the D1/BCS level, but rather that if you had your choice, which, in an ideal world, would be best for Hoya Hoops?
P.S. Please, for once, disregard that I am the one asking the questions. And I guess as I think deeper about it, I guess I'm asking whether it would be better to sever ties with the likes of Syracuse, Pitt and even UConn, who are making/have made pushes to be competitive at the highest levels of football or would it be better to try to somehow coexist with such programs? I see arguments for both ... but honestly, that damn dollar thing is pretty mighty for a reason.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 28, 2011 15:24:46 GMT -5
In no particular order ...
Forgot to add that if TAMU loses at Arkansas this weekend, the Aggies will be back to .500 (21-21) under Mike Sherman. But I'm sure going the SEC will fix everything...
Seeing as how my team is a member of the already brutal SEC, mark me down as one who isn't disappointed that the likes of Texas or Oklahoma haven't been added to our folds. That being said, A&M is a top ten school in the All-Sports rankings. And believe it or not, even though football is King and pays all the bills, the SEC really is focused on being an Allsport championship conference.
Clemson upsets Virginia Tech in Blacksburg
Do you really think Clemson can finally win a big game on the road? Or that Va. Tech will lose a big game at home to the likes of Clemson? More importantly, do you think Team Schizophrenia can win 3 big games, 3 weeks in a row? I hope you are right, but I wouldn't wager any lunch money on it.
Say the SEC is overhyped if you want, but they get talent like no other conference. And when you have coaches that can coach them up, you get some epic battles, like Bama-Florida.
I sure hope the game lives up to its billing. For what it's worth, most of the pundits seem to be picking Bama in this game. Perhaps the best comment that I've heard was that if you made an All-Star team of players from the first four teams that Florida has played, it would get killed by Bama. As much as I would like to be confident and full of brevado, I'm somehow forced to be more reserved. That being said, coming into this season, 8-4 seemed to be the slightly above average prediction for the Gators. And 7-5 was a quite common prediction with 6-6 also mentioned frequently. Also, almost everyone said that if Florida could split the October gauntlet -- Bama, at LSU, at Auburn and Georgia -- then they would be happy. Suffice it to say that we will all know a lot more in a few days.
Florida squeaks by Alabama
I certainly hope you are right, and if it is a close game, then it has to work in Florida's favor that they have a great kicker in Sturgis.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 27, 2011 16:11:14 GMT -5
As a Redskins fan it's easy to hate anything Dallas Cowboys but Tony Romo makes it so much easier. I've never seen any quarterback yelling at his teammates like Romo did last night. Always blaming someone else for whatever went wrong. Yeah, but let's not forget the "Golden Boy" Peyton Manning. Every single time he throws an incompletion, he throws his hands up in the air and rolls his eyes. I mean he is as demonstrative as anyone I've ever seen. "MAYBE" that's just how he is and maybe he's saying, "mother of God, please help me to not make such a poor throw next time." But to the layman's eyes, it sure looks like he's showing up his teammates. It's almost like he's saying "how could all of this be happening to me!!!! Me, of all people!!!!"
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 23, 2011 16:18:42 GMT -5
No, I think you are missing my point. If the Bronco fans would rather lose with someone new, and Brady Quinn is ahead of Tebow on the depth chart, why aren't the fans chanting for Quinn? Just because he has a little (but not much) experience as a starter already? I think not
Sorry I'm late getting back to you. I don't disagree with what you are saying at all. And maybe I'm not being fair to Brady Quinn -- or at least the Bronco fans aren't. Maybe they don't view Quinn as something new. Like I say, maybe that's not fair to him. But Tebow -- rightly or wrongly -- is viewed as a future, if not their future. If so, then it's understandable that losing in the present would encourage a desire to start working on the future. That being said, Denver did look pretty good last weekend. If they can stay competitive and win their share of games, then I think this discussion will become moot
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 23, 2011 16:13:16 GMT -5
Thanks Austin. I needed a good laugh.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 19, 2011 14:20:19 GMT -5
For what it's worth, the rumors down here are almost all that the SEC will go after Missouri -- and several say that they already have. Maybe it's just me, but for the past half dozen years or so, there has been realignment conversations, so maybe I have just trained myself to not give said conversations the time of day, but it sure seems like alignment kicked it into overdrive really quickly. Is there another reason, or is it simply a matter of not wanting to be the program or the conference that didn't act quickly enough?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 14, 2011 16:10:47 GMT -5
Yeah, the quarterbacks sure did dominate -- in more ways than one.
After Sunday night's debacle by Romo in the 4th quarter, he dominated te discussions all by himself. But in all seriousness, there is a lot to talk discuss about NFL QBs already.
Who is most "playing for his job" this weekend was a question I heard discussed on one of he National shows this morning. I don't think that's actually the right question, but it does touch on some interesting angles. Matty Ice was the next coming of Peyton Manning in some eyes. But if the Falcons lose to the Eagles this weekend, then the Atlanta will start 0-2. They went 13-3 last year if I recall. That's a lot of pressure -- espcially playing against the "most upgraded" major player from last year's playoff teams. What about Ben Rothlisberger and the showing that the Steelers had? They looked anemic, granted against a very good and fired up home Ravens team. Kerry Collins is showing just how important the original Peyton Manning is. And then in losing efforts, Chad Henne and Cameron Newton look to follow up their statistical success of the opening week. Given that I -- a spokesman for the superiority of the college game -- can admit significant interest in the NFL in this, the third week of the college season, definitely tells you that the NFL is doing something right.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 14, 2011 13:23:24 GMT -5
rooter wrote:
Except that Tebow is also listed behind Brady Quinn, so how do Bronco fans rationalize that?
You missed my point entirely. My point wasn't that they were justified somehow in their cravings and desires of the unknown and therefore the change that is inspiring them. The point is that they would rather lose with someone new. Rightly or wrongly, there is the hope that it will get better 00 that he will get better and that the team will get better. Whether they do or not is a different question altogether. Again, there is an assumption that Kyle Orton is a known commodity. I watched most of the game Monday, and Orton played pretty well for the most part. But late in the game, neither he nor anyone else played very well. The line didnt block anyone and on offense, it doesn't really matter who's playing qb, if that's the problem.
Still, the point is that there is a feeling that if they are losing with someone new while he's also going through the pitfalls of his learning curve then there is a light at the end of the tunnel. And they hold out hope that maybe, just maybe, the promised land will get here sooner if Tebow gets out there sooner.
The bottom line is that if they win with Orton then they are fine with it, but if they are going to lose with Orton then they would rather have Tebow out there. What I don't think they are really factoring in is just how they would feel if they did in fact lose with Tebow. Then would they still feel the same way? Of course not. They might be saying they shouldn't have drafted him to begin with and that they should have played Orton. "At least he's a 'real' quarterback" would be the sentiment de jeur then.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 13, 2011 15:50:58 GMT -5
All of a sudden, the Devil Rays are only 3 games back of the Red Sox for the AL wild card. Stranger things have happened, but not this time, I don't think. The Rays have a much tougher remaining schedule -- at least on paper. The Sox have 7 games left with Baltimore, while the Rays pretty much play the Yankees, Red Sox and Blue Jays the rest of the way. They're going to have to hope to take their games from the Red Sox, and then gain ground playing the Yanks and Blue Jays while the Sox stumble against the Orioles. That's not very likely, but as I said, stranger things have happened.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 13, 2011 15:15:32 GMT -5
I'll come to the defense of the Bronco fans -- at least a bit. I think that part of their sentiment also comes from "change." They are ready to change. Of course, in their case, the "change" they are looking for is changing into a better football team. Still, the point is that Orton is a known commodity. Unfortunately, that known quality is that of a mediocre football player. I'm not anti-Orton, but I do think that there is that hope that the "something new" in Tebow, will turn to gold. And I think that's the hope behind many of the Bronco fans support of Tebow.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 10, 2011 12:43:58 GMT -5
also, I just caught this part:
I also think the second SEC team will be FSU, unless UF can arrange to keep the 'Noles out politically
I can honestly say that I have no problem with FSU joining the SEC, but from everything I hear, it isn't going to happen. The common mantra was that all existing SEC programs would lobby strongly against new members from within their own state -- USCe doesn't want Clemson, Georgia doesn't want Ga. Tech, Kentucky doesn't want Louisville and Florida doesn't want FSU. Now I don't know how strong such a sentiment is and whether it even exists to a significant degree in all cases. But as for the SEC, it is pretty clear that the biggest bargaining chip that a prospective new member could offer is a significant TV market. FSU doesn't bring that. Similarly, neither does Clemson. While Ga. Tech might appear to offer the Atlanta market, the truth is that Georgia owns more of that market than the Ramblin' Wreck. Further, the "market" is already there either way. The bottom line is that I would like FSU to be in the SEC and to face and SEC schedule every year. But it doesn't look like it's going to happen. So I guess your conclusion is correct, but I wouldn't say that Florida played some sort of political game to keep FSU out.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 10, 2011 12:34:30 GMT -5
Michigan over Notre Dame under the lights at the Big House
Yeah, I just heard yesterday that they finally installed power at the stadium. So they can finally have a night game.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 7, 2011 15:21:26 GMT -5
If Kansas, K-State, and Missouri joined, how often do you think Kansas City would be in the mix for the conference basketball tournament? I'm not sure if this is just speculation or whether there is some credible source out there suggesting a restructuring of that magnitude. But there have been stranger things. There are a bunch of rumors out there, but they are pretty much still speculation at this point. Still, it looks like the SEC is going to go to 16 teams. If so, then the "Big 12" will likely lose at least one more team and the general sentiment seems to be that there will be a general erosion of the entire league. And that very well could leave Kansas and Kansas St. out of the mix. As for Missouri, there are more and more rumors about them being in line for SEC expansion. If so, I'm sure that it is all about the money. Missouri would add appreciable TV markets, in KC and St. Louis. Also, they would add a travel partner for Arkansas. Nobody seems to know right now. But IF Missouri does get invited to the SEC, then that would be 14 teams in the SEC. So there would still likely be two more. I kept hearing -- and it made the most sense -- that Va Tech would be the next SEC target and again, it gets back to TV markets and the Hokies would bring the Washington D.C. market into play. The key is that it looks like the SEC is going to 16 teams. There are now 13 with Texas A&M. a All reports are that Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. are a "package deal." And they are rumored to be targets of both the Pac 10 and the SEC. One report today said that those two have the approval of the other SEC Presidents. The point is that it really looks like the Big 12 is going to look radically different in a couple of years. If that's the case, and the Oklahoma schools and maybe Missouri leave, what do the Kansas, Kansas St. and Iowa States of the world do?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 7, 2011 11:44:43 GMT -5
I don't know anyone who liked any of those revolutionary uniforms from last weekend -- at least no one of legal age. Some of my son's friends said they thought they were cool. And on an ESPN show they showed a couple of tweets from people complimenting them. But every real opinion from an adult that I've heard ranged from gaudy to absurd.
We've come to expect it from Oregon, but that absurdity that Georgia was wearing was ridiculous. It made the Boise St. uniforms look normal. Boise actually looked like a tame throwback uniform, except for those flourescent orange shoes, which made the whole thing look silly. But Georgia ... ugh. In addition to the simple appearance, they were made funny. From the back it looked like they were wearing "onesies."
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 7, 2011 11:27:46 GMT -5
My biggest beef is with ESPN, who is quickly losing any semblance of objectivity. With their interest in the Longhorn Network, they can't report on the issue objectively. Listening to ESPN talk about objectivity is about as likely as Vince McMahon talking objectively about the WWE. Both have a position of power within their respective industries where they really think resistance is futile and their leadership can be dictated in the marketplace. The latest example (about ESPN, that is): www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/sports/ncaafootball/feldman-embattled-writer-leaves-espn-for-cbs.htmlVince McMahon is always straight with you.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 22, 2011 14:15:06 GMT -5
Best words ever written with sidewalk chalk. Best wishes to all.
Well put, and I agree.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 19, 2011 15:31:53 GMT -5
I still haven't seen the footage, so I'm speaking from hearsay to a degree. That being said, it seems pretty unanimous that the refs were to blame to begin with. But as for the security, the only thing that they really should have been involved in would be controlling the crowd. And from the feedback, it sounds as if the unruly crowd did go to far -- throwing stuff at the very least. But ... and again I'm saying this without having seen the actual footage ... but I'm not sure that swifter or more severe actions by the security officers would have directly impacted the players and their fisticuffs -- and I don't think they should. Emotions and the reactions that come from them are an unfortunate side effect of competition. Certainly these reactions are not acceptable, but do we really want local security jumping in when players get up in each others' faces? That sounds like a formula for disaster in and of itself. Do you all think that was what the writer was suggesting or do you think he was solely talking about crowd control? And again, if so, then I'm not sure it really would have "solved" the real problems. The above seems to be a longform version of "I didn't see the footage, but I'm going to comment anyway". Yeah, you kind of need to see the footage. This quickly involved spectators. At that level, it's not just on the court - crowd control quickly realizes when something has switched to a more dangerous level. Am I to conclude that you disagree? You don't think this whole thing started with atrocious officiating? just curious 'specially since someone else teased me about "blaming the refs." For the record, I hate refs. But that general topic is for another day.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 19, 2011 12:59:49 GMT -5
From the NY Times article: "One of the few newspapers to cover the fight, the Beijing News, blamed the referee for poorly officiating the game and security guards for inaction during the fisticuffs. The paper, however, suggested that Hoya coach John Thompson III had a hand in the mayhem, and Georgetown is known for its aggressive defensive tactics." Well, you know, perhaps JT, Jr., but is there a coach less likely to have had a hand in the mayhem than JTIII? I still haven't seen the footage, so I'm speaking from hearsay to a degree. That being said, it seems pretty unanimous that the refs were to blame to begin with. But as for the security, the only thing that they really should have been involved in would be controlling the crowd. And from the feedback, it sounds as if the unruly crowd did go to far -- throwing stuff at the very least. But ... and again I'm saying this without having seen the actual footage ... but I'm not sure that swifter or more severe actions by the security officers would have directly impacted the players and their fisticuffs -- and I don't think they should. Emotions and the reactions that come from them are an unfortunate side effect of competition. Certainly these reactions are not acceptable, but do we really want local security jumping in when players get up in each others' faces? That sounds like a formula for disaster in and of itself. Do you all think that was what the writer was suggesting or do you think he was solely talking about crowd control? And again, if so, then I'm not sure it really would have "solved" the real problems.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 18, 2011 16:15:46 GMT -5
at least someone had the wisdom to print this:
Nonetheless, the AP notes, the fight has “marred the orchestrated harmony” of his visit to China.
Really? You think so? Idiot.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 18, 2011 16:08:14 GMT -5
I lost the link, but I did see an article which gave a handful of statistics. Free throws were 57-15 !!!! Fifty-seven free throws attempted in under 3 quarters???!!! Wow. And to only 15 !!!
Yeah, I know ... I didn't see the game ... if you're a bigger more physical team, you get more calls ... yada yada yada ....
57-15 says it all.
Also, the A.P. article said the game was tied at 64 when JTIII pulled the team off the floor. But someone here said that it was 64-62 when the fight broke out and that they were awarded the 2 free throws after the Hoyas left the floor. I don't think it will matter in the "record books" ... hell, I don't even think there are record books, and if there are, China will put what they want to in them anyway. But I am kind of curious ... not that it matters.
|
|