|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Nov 6, 2011 0:40:17 GMT -5
Game of the century my ass. I'm glad I didn't start watching until the 4th. Unfortunately, I watched the whole thing. Both teams have great players, but none of them were under center for LSU or Alabama tonight. Mediocre QB play led to a fairly boring game. Really getting tired of the SEC hype. There were two fine football programs on the field tonight in Tuscaloosa, but I did not see two unbeatable titans. I flipped over to K-State at Oklahoma State during commercial breaks. Kind of wish I had watched that game; the finish was certainly fun. The Cowboys still lack a great defense, and I can certainly see them losing to OU in a shootout in Stillwater. Sooner fans think their team can play its way back into the national title picture and are hoping for Boise/Stanford losses and pandemonium in the SEC (i.e. Arkansas beats LSU and there's a three-way tie for first in the SEC West). Personally, I don't think losing at home to Texas Tech is going to look very good come crunch time. I attended the Texas Tech at Texas game today, and it was a blast. David Ash was turnover-free, and the Longhorns' stable of running backs had an excellent day against a terrible run defense. The rest of the schedule isn't easy for Texas, but the team will almost certainly exceed expectations for this season. In other Texas football news, the Aggies were outscored 28-0 in the third quarter in Norman. What the hell happens in the TAMU locker room at halftime? I can't believe I picked Washington to beat Oregon tonight in a trap game. The score was close at halftime, but last I checked, the Huskies' defense had completely checked out. Still think Stanford should beat the Ducks next week. Bad week for conference switchers: Colorado, Nebraska, Mizzou, WVU, Syracuse, and Pitt all lost. Only Utah won its game.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Nov 7, 2011 11:01:07 GMT -5
Game of the century my ass. I'm glad I didn't start watching until the 4th. Unfortunately, I watched the whole thing. Both teams have great players, but none of them were under center for LSU or Alabama tonight. Mediocre QB play led to a fairly boring game. Really getting tired of the SEC hype. There were two fine football programs on the field tonight in Tuscaloosa, but I did not see two unbeatable titans. I flipped over to K-State at Oklahoma State during commercial breaks. Kind of wish I had watched that game; the finish was certainly fun. The Cowboys still lack a great defense, and I can certainly see them losing to OU in a shootout in Stillwater. Sooner fans think their team can play its way back into the national title picture and are hoping for Boise/Stanford losses and pandemonium in the SEC (i.e. Arkansas beats LSU and there's a three-way tie for first in the SEC West). Personally, I don't think losing at home to Texas Tech is going to look very good come crunch time. I attended the Texas Tech at Texas game today, and it was a blast. David Ash was turnover-free, and the Longhorns' stable of running backs had an excellent day against a terrible run defense. The rest of the schedule isn't easy for Texas, but the team will almost certainly exceed expectations for this season. In other Texas football news, the Aggies were outscored 28-0 in the third quarter in Norman. What the hell happens in the TAMU locker room at halftime? I can't believe I picked Washington to beat Oregon tonight in a trap game. The score was close at halftime, but last I checked, the Huskies' defense had completely checked out. Still think Stanford should beat the Ducks next week. Bad week for conference switchers: Colorado, Nebraska, Mizzou, WVU, Syracuse, and Pitt all lost. Only Utah won its game. When the league has dominated the BCS games and won the last 5 National Championships, it isn't hype. Until some team actually steps up and beats them, they get every right to crow and puff chest out and monopolize the sport. I've seen the "big time offenses" of Oklahoma, Texas, and Oregon, the tough Big 10 Ohio State go into the games and get beat and in Oklahoma and Oregon's cases, they were completely shut down and were claimed to have unstoppable offenses. LSU and Alabama are the 2 best teams and not so sure UGA isn't a top 5 team by end of year-(Boise will get a lot of love from media for beating them come SEC Title game as I expect UGA to give LSU a good game--which makes sense-a young team growing at year's end and getting exploited by a veteran team in 1st game of year which they have all offseason to prep for--as is the Boise way). DEFENSE wins championships and I never want to see the Big XII return to a BCS Title game until they find some in the damn league. Listening to the media talk up Oklahoma State is laughable. Those "boring" running plays/offenses that LSU and Alabama utilize would put 50+ pts on Oklahoma State. Oklahoma--they need to go away. You lose at home to a Texas Tech team that has been outscored 90-33 in the past 2 weeks by conference opponents and in process give up 41 pts to them, you don't belong. Stanford is getting talked up due to Andrew Luck--only problem, they run an SEC offense. Their offense is power running and Luck passing to TE's. Their WR would never get open and Luck would struggle big time. I'd like to see how he'd fare against an LSU, but seeing how USC was able to run the ball with ease against Stanford and knowing that Oregon repeatedly as abused Stanford rush defense, I don't like the matchup for Stanford. Which leaves Oregon/Alabama as possible rematches with LSU. Which would mean rematch either way and if you go by what I like to call the "regionalization" of the BCS, you'd get Tigers-Tide in rematch, which would allow SEC a chance to get a 3rd team in Sugar Bowl--a UGA for instance. Could very well happen. Alabama and LSU have great defenses and while their offense is devoid of big time QB play--their running games would abuse the teams being bantered about and their size/speed on defense will stop the other teams-which has been proven time/time again. If they are overhyped/overrated, what the **** is the Big XII? I can't take that 7 on 7 league seriously and Oklahoma State giving up 45 pts to a team that Miami was a yd away from beating is disgusting. Can't wait for the annual Bedlam first to 50 shootout in Stillwater where nobody attempts to play defense other then get strips and wait for picks and Okie State trails by 2 scores but returns a kick with less then 5 minutes left, only to kick deep and never get ball back as Oklahoma scores an easy TD while just trying to run clock out. Pac 12's decision to not stick up for USC is killing them. Trojans are a good team this year--by far the 3rd best team in conference behind Oregon/Stanford and wins over USC don't count for Cardinal or Ducks due to them being ineligible for postseason play which as we've seen since Ohio State, Auburn, UNC, Miami, etc....the punishment is absurd for the crime. UCLA is in drivers seat to represent the Pac 12 South in league title game--which means only thing that does to a Stanford/Oregon is make it so they HAVE to blow them out or they'll be punished for it and even then, it will have to be a 50-60 pt blowout to be taken seriously. UCLA is awful and yet Denny Erickson and his undisciplined group go into Rose Bowl and have guys throwing balls out of bounds when catching 1st down passes which means they don't rules, committing stupid penalties, etc...it's just so Sparky of them. Big "Dozen" 10 is a league where game doesn't travel. Teams are tough at home but can't beat anyone away from home. Poor. Penn State has best defense which means I'll go with them to win the league. Wisconsin's inability to play defense cost them a shot at National Title. For competitive sake, I hope that I'm wrong and someone steps up (with Stanford being my hope more then Oklahoma State for simple fact that Colin Klein offense put 45 on them and had chance to tie game late which no other top 5 team would be in that situation--especially at home) but think best bet for a competitive championship game is rematch of Tigers-Tide.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Nov 7, 2011 12:18:08 GMT -5
RDF: I am sure that you were celebrating the dominance of the Nebraska Cornhuskers in the mid-90's.
As I said, LSU and Alabama are two fine football programs. They play in a league that has produced five consecutive national champions in a terrible system that does not allow for true competition. That league also contains some crap teams, a fact which is often overlooked. Compare the SEC's non-conference schedule to those of the other BCS conferences and tell me that (other than LSU) the Southeastern Conference has proved itself on the field this season. It hasn't. SEC teams don't have to prove themselves in the non-conference half of the schedule, because the big SEC games will always be called "the real national championship" by the media until a team from another conference wins the national championship. (BTW, I'm sorry that Miami fans are now so self-loathing that a win on the road against the Hurricanes is such a terrible thing.)
I don't disagree that 'Bama and LSU running games would gash Oklahoma State's defense. I remember well what the Tide did to Texas' run defense in the National Championship in 2009. However, if I recall correctly, Texas (from that 7-on-7 league) was in that ballgame for four quarters while playing a completely green freshman QB. So forgive me for my belief that the other teams at the top of the standings would have a shot to beat Alabama or LSU.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,438
|
Post by hoyarooter on Nov 7, 2011 12:44:26 GMT -5
Assuming LSU remains unbeaten, I would much rather see some team other than Alabama play LSU in the championship game, whether it be Stanford (my personal choice), Oklahoma State (and I agree, that would be a blowout) or Boise, and I'll take my chances as to whether the game proves to be competitive. LSU went into Tuscaloosa and won. Why should they have to prove themselves against Alabama again? If the teams split, why should Alabama be the national champion? Let Alabama go to the Sugar Bowl. They had their shot. Tell them to get a better kicker.*
*By the way, that Dback from LSU, forget his name, probably made the play of the year stealing the ball at the LSU one. He doesn't make that play, and most likely the game never gets to OT.
One more unrelated thing - it looks like I may have buried Slick Rick too soon. Regardless of how they did it, they still just pulled off the biggest win in his four years at UCLA, and if they beat Utah and Colorado, he may yet save his job. I still think he should get the gate, and I expect them to lose to Utah anyway, sealing the deal, but we'll see.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Nov 7, 2011 13:15:24 GMT -5
RDF: I am sure that you were celebrating the dominance of the Nebraska Cornhuskers in the mid-90's. As I said, LSU and Alabama are two fine football programs. They play in a league that has produced five consecutive national champions in a terrible system that does not allow for true competition. That league also contains some crap teams, a fact which is often overlooked. Compare the SEC's non-conference schedule to those of the other BCS conferences and tell me that (other than LSU) the Southeastern Conference has proved itself on the field this season. It hasn't. SEC teams don't have to prove themselves in the non-conference half of the schedule, because the big SEC games will always be called "the real national championship" by the media until a team from another conference wins the national championship. (BTW, I'm sorry that Miami fans are now so self-loathing that a win on the road against the Hurricanes is such a terrible thing.) I don't disagree that 'Bama and LSU running games would gash Oklahoma State's defense. I remember well what the Tide did to Texas' run defense in the National Championship in 2009. However, if I recall correctly, Texas (from that 7-on-7 league) was in that ballgame for four quarters while playing a completely green freshman QB. So forgive me for my belief that the other teams at the top of the standings would have a shot to beat Alabama or LSU. You mad? ;D First of all--WTF do you think I am, some SEC homer? You know how I feel--and I agree 100% about your assessment of the SEC as a whole--they are overhyped as a conference in terms of depth yearly--and that is also what happens when you have CBS and ESPN with billions of dollars invested in a conference, they are going to push an agenda. I AGREE with you. Nebraska kicked ass and took names in 90's in their run. This applies to this discussion in what manner? They beat my favorite team in a road game in National Title--which I've never felt was that fair to begin with and have mentioned-Miami won 3 of their 5 NC's by getting to play in their home stadium. They also destroyed UF and Tennessee to get titles too and were great/dominant team. I'm all for the best teams playing and everyone and especially you should know that. This farce of a system not only robs us of the best matchup far too often, it robs us of great bowl games by the "Bowl Lottery" where they get to pick teams instead of giving us the best matchups. It's how it is--but if we're really looking for the best 2 teams this season, it's LSU and Alabama and they happen to be in same league--at least that is my and overwhelmingly most others take. Now the beauty of sports is things don't go as planned, but I know one thing--seeing Oklahoma State get pummeled and they would--their strength fits into LSU's strength (offense vs defense) and what they struggle to stop (physical offense) would just waste viewer's time. That's why I'm hopeful for a Stanford vs LSU matchup--to see Luck against LSU but I'm not liking the matchup overall there--but Luck is also best player in country vs best team so it would at least be worth tuning in--unlike seeing Brandon Wheeden and company get beat 55-21 or something along those lines. Let's face Austin, the Big XII has had more then ample times to prove itself and only your Longhorns have shown themselves to be competitive or worthy in a legit manner. Horns played classic game in '05 and then you are 100% right about '09 and I have no problem with Texas, HOWEVER, you turn attention to Oklahoma--and they've RUINED these games: '03--Should've been LSU vs USC '04--Should've been Auburn vs USC '08--Should've been UF vs USC Now aside from that--I'd say Nebraska ruined the '-01 title game as they didn't belong--and really were selected simply due to fact they knew Miami wouldn't travel to Rose Bowl and needed a large fanbase to fill stadium seeing Huskers didn't win division of Big XII that year and made NC title game and weren't nearly competitive enough to play with Miami--as Alabama has proven against LSU. I won't get into fact Oklahoma got a gift in playing FSU and not Miami in '00 but it shows a common theme--if OU is involved in BCS and any non Texas team--it's often preventing the best teams from playing and that is what system is in place for--the best 2 teams to play it out. As for the shot at me stating an obvious fact about a mediocre Miami program--at least I can be rationale about the program I support. They aren't very good and I think Golden is doing a nice job, but it's a long road ahead and seeing them play KSU in same circumstances that Oklahoma State did--home game, tight game, and as limited as they've been on defense due to deserved suspensions and injuries, it's pretty sad state for a conference that your best team is one that can't stop anyone. They are awful on defense and we hear every year that "it's just because of explosive Big XII offenses......." well aside from your Horns, who in Big XII has put up numbers in title game? Nebraska didn't. OU gets shut down--including their '00 Title team, so please tell me where I'm wrong? Until a team from Big XII NOT named Texas shows up and does as advertised instead of blocking the deserving teams, then I'm going to call it out. Tired of media hyping them and they suck up the entire field on biggest stage. At least the Pac 12 has earned their right into the game and given a respectable showing and it's why I hope Stanford gets in--if Oregon gets in, I think they'd be fine too but I'm reserved to fact the BCS will not allow a 1 loss Oregon to jump 1 loss Bama, so guess we all need to pull for Auburn in Iron Bowl to avoid that and yes I have no faith in Okie State to beat Oklahoma--again until they prove it, can't rely on what media hypes. Boise State-just play 2-3 respectable opponents in succession and you'll get my respect. Until then--can't be in a title game over other leagues--and that includes the Big XII. Watched a rebuilding Notre Dame hammer Air Force and a week later same team is in a game with Boise in their clown stadium deep in 4th quarter. How does Boise do when they don't have months to prep for 1 game? Just want to see it, until then I'm not wanting to see a 1-2 game season allowed to prosper while others actually face competition.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 7, 2011 13:26:34 GMT -5
I'm also confused as to how the Nebraska teams from the 1990s fit in to this conversation.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Nov 7, 2011 13:32:21 GMT -5
Assuming LSU remains unbeaten, I would much rather see some team other than Alabama play LSU in the championship game, whether it be Stanford (my personal choice), Oklahoma State (and I agree, that would be a blowout) or Boise, and I'll take my chances as to whether the game proves to be competitive. LSU went into Tuscaloosa and won. Why should they have to prove themselves against Alabama again? If the teams split, why should Alabama be the national champion? Let Alabama go to the Sugar Bowl. They had their shot. Tell them to get a better kicker.* *By the way, that Dback from LSU, forget his name, probably made the play of the year stealing the ball at the LSU one. He doesn't make that play, and most likely the game never gets to OT. One more unrelated thing - it looks like I may have buried Slick Rick too soon. Regardless of how they did it, they still just pulled off the biggest win in his four years at UCLA, and if they beat Utah and Colorado, he may yet save his job. I still think he should get the gate, and I expect them to lose to Utah anyway, sealing the deal, but we'll see. The object is for 2 best teams to play. LSU will have earned their title berth by winning Saturday--they'd still have to play someone in the game and you'll get what you want as long as Oklahoma State and Stanford win out. It's that simple. IF those teams lose a game, then it should be the best opponent left to face LSU and if that's Alabama, then so be it. Everyone knows the system they sign up for prior to season, if they don't care for it--change it. Until then--the object is to get 2 best teams on the field for Championship game. IF the Stanford/Oklahoma State lose, it leaves the argument that you should allow "cinderfella" to get their shot. Well this aint CBB where Butler at least has to earn their way--Boise wins a game on opening weekend and that is to prove they can do it if they were in a league. BULL****. They haven't proven a damn thing. It's not just the consistent level of competition BCS leagues face, but also the different style of play within your league and if you have a bad game like Boise's been having--and you are facing major competition--you can lose--if Oklahoma is playing Fresno State or UNLV on the same Sat they played Texas Tech, do they still win by double digits? Of course. Tech is a marginal team but you play poorly they can beat you. Same with Iowa State, Same with Vandy--albeit improved and not awful, Northwestern proved it this past weekend, USF beat Notre Dame and they are average, etc.... We've seen it before--Nebraska vs Oklahoma in '71, FSU vs UF in '96, and it often doesn't/won't happen so not like it'll change how things go. We almost had it with Michigan-Ohio State in '06 too. Same with FSU-Miami in '00. I think your argument holds more if the winning team blows out the losing team. In all cases, we're talking about 3 to 4 pt spreads, and in this case an OT game that while not pretty, was what you expect in a true 1 vs 2 game. UCLA fans should want the team to lose to Utah and USC because Neuheisel staying another year just prevents the program from taking advantage of SC's probation. They are done with bowl ban after this year, and will have 2 years left of scholarship reductions. Another year-and that means you give new coach 1 year to take advantage of their reductions and while it sounds awful--USC has done a great job acting like they are far behind everyone else--key number in their reduction is 75 man roster--not 30 losses of scholarships. All they lose is 10 over 3 years--so they can't go full 85 for 3 years--so it's not even 1 side of the ball they lose and while it would show up if they suffer injury--Kiffin and Ed Orgeron's recruiting is an improvement with less scholarships then Pete Carroll's staff at end was doing with full allotment. Carroll's best teams were put together by Orgeron/Kiffin and Carroll only had to close. Pete's son was awful as RC. *if anyone is confused by the 30 over 3 years--and thinking it's "brutal", its not losing 30 scholarship from 85 down to 55. It just means they can't be at a full 85 over 3 years. So they have to manage a 75 man roster which means they will sign 18-19 with early mid term enrollees. So it's not as bad as many are misinterpreting and Kiffin has smartly played up to media--which is hilarious because he's doing this to give himself/staff extra time to right ship, get positive spin/PR. You're likely going to RS 10 kids in a class, so he can actually use it as a positive to make sure he gets players to come. You'll play, get more practice reps, won't have to sit out, etc.....so it's not nearly as bad as it seems to media who have ignored the facts--twice--when USC was wrongfully punished by Paul Donuts Dee and Missy Conboy and now with sanctions.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 7, 2011 15:51:10 GMT -5
RDF, I hope you're sitting down, because I agree with almost everything you said. As for whether there "should" be a rematch, I just don't think that should even be a question. The goal of the BCS is to pair up the best two teams at year's end. Whether or not it accomplishes that is another question, but the point is that whether the game would be a rematch should really have no bearing. Personally, I think that too much is typically placed on the more recent games. A loss in the last week or two of the season, will normally eliminate you from contention, even though your complete body of work, might not. If everything else were to happen exactly the same, but team A beat team B in the first week of the season, as opposed to the last week of the season, team B's ranking would likely be 4 or even more spots lower. I understand recognizing improvement in a team over the year, but there's a lot more to it than that. Also, most voters tend to sort of follow the previous rankings -- or at least use them as a starting point -- and I don't think they should. Sometimes teams need to move down in the rankings even after a win. For that matter, sometimes teams should go up, even after a loss.
Also, rooter and Austin, as RDF pointed out, the SEC DOES get to puff out its chest! We ARE the best conference. We have been for quite a while and will continue to be for quite some time.
As for Bama and LSU, after we lost to LSU the week after we lost to Bama, I made the point on the air that I thought that they were the best and most complete two teams I had seen since the Gator team that won the 2008 BCS title. My only reservation was that LSU faces us without our starting quarterback. I know injuries are part of the game and I'm not making excuses, but my point is that maybe my view of just how good LSU was, was inflated a bit by our ineffectiveness on offense. But now my views have been confirmed. From everything I have seen, we saw the best two teams this season play each other Saturday night. The caliber of player and the quality of play was very, very good. Sure, Bama lost because it was unable to score. They ventured inside the LSU 30 yard line 7 times and scored 6 points. Sure, you give LSU credit for good defense. And Bama was certainly lacking in the kicking game, but overall, the play was very good. It featured great players making great plays. The best part was that the big names did step up -- Richardson and Matthieu did have their own sportscenter highlights -- but more importantly, we saw elite play from some of the lesser known players. I'm no fan of Bama or LSU, but that was a classic game between two really, really good football teams.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Nov 7, 2011 18:00:16 GMT -5
I'm also confused as to how the Nebraska teams from the 1990s fit in to this conversation. I thought I remembered RDF dissing the entire Tom Osborne era at some point. My memory has obviously expanded his well-warranted criticism of the Crouch years. Really, I'm still just ticked off that Texas didn't join the Pac-12 and is stuck in the "Oklahoma and a bunch of historically mediocre programs" conference. It's not a bad league, but it's certainly not a great one, either. It's kind of like the Big 8, with Texas replacing Nebraska.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 7, 2011 18:18:40 GMT -5
I'm also confused as to how the Nebraska teams from the 1990s fit in to this conversation. I thought I remembered RDF dissing the entire Tom Osborne era at some point. My memory has obviously expanded his well-warranted criticism of the Crouch years. Really, I'm still just ticked off that Texas didn't join the Pac-12 and is stuck in the "Oklahoma and a bunch of historically mediocre programs" conference. It's not a bad league, but it's certainly not a great one, either. It's kind of like the Big 8, with Texas replacing Nebraska. What are you talking about? All the K-State and KU fans are saying Mizzou is making a mistake by joining the SEC and it's much better to be in the Big 8 12
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,438
|
Post by hoyarooter on Nov 7, 2011 21:44:35 GMT -5
In 2006, because the Ohio State - Michigan game was so fantastic, lots of people (including me) wanted to see a rematch, because those were the two best teams. It didn't come to pass, so what happened? Ohio State and Michigan both lost their bowl games. I've seen the error of my ways. I don't want to see a rematch, unless forced into it by the other unbeaten teams all losing (except perhaps Boise and Houston - I guess I can wait for both of those teams to join the Big East to play for the national championship ;D). How do we really know that Alabama is better than Stanford? Please, Stanford, go unbeaten, and play LSU for the title. Maybe LSU blows them out. Maybe not. But I'd much prefer 0 loss Stanford to 1 loss Alabama, and if LSU wins, no one will be able to say that they aren't deserving because they didn't play Alabama a second time.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Nov 8, 2011 0:24:33 GMT -5
I'm also confused as to how the Nebraska teams from the 1990s fit in to this conversation. I thought I remembered RDF dissing the entire Tom Osborne era at some point. My memory has obviously expanded his well-warranted criticism of the Crouch years. Really, I'm still just ticked off that Texas didn't join the Pac-12 and is stuck in the "Oklahoma and a bunch of historically mediocre programs" conference. It's not a bad league, but it's certainly not a great one, either. It's kind of like the Big 8, with Texas replacing Nebraska. I actually think the Big XII is on their way to being better. I'd rather have WVU and TCU then Missouri and A&M while a good program--isn't worth keeping if they are wanting to leave. Texas is showing me more then Oklahoma because Brown admitted that he had to change some things and Stoops NEVER does--and it's sickening. Piling on points with 1st string players in late against Kansas, begging Draft eligible players to return only to see them get severely injured (Bradford, Gresham, Broyles, Perkins, Mitchell, etc.. and just hope Broyles recovers like Bradford did) and they are going with more physical/balanced approach and Texas has always been willing to get good DC's-- from SEC by the way.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Nov 8, 2011 14:24:05 GMT -5
I actually think the Big XII is on their way to being better. I'd rather have WVU and TCU then Missouri and A&M while a good program--isn't worth keeping if they are wanting to leave.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that you'd rather have (as a conference member), TCU and WVU than Missouri and Texas A&M? Really? Or did you mean that you'd rather have TCU and WVU than Missouri -- in a two for one? Or did you mean -- and I'm guessing this one -- you'd rather have TCU or WVU than Missouri? If so, I'd disagree in this case. Since the conference is already well represented in the state of Texas, TCU doesn't bring a lot to the table. So the question is which program does: Missouri or WVU? I think the St Louis and Kansas City markets make Missouri more attractive.
In any case, I think that the SEC has done a great job of expansion and has brought in two comparatively top programs that will benefit from their association with the SEC, but in doing so, the SEC has brought many more of those almighty dollar thingies into the coffers.
And in all honesty, if the Big 12/8/10ish end up with TCU and WVU instead of A&M and Missouri, then I don't think they have improved themselves and I would argue they took a step backwards.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Nov 8, 2011 16:16:04 GMT -5
I actually think the Big XII is on their way to being better. I'd rather have WVU and TCU then Missouri and A&M while a good program--isn't worth keeping if they are wanting to leave. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that you'd rather have (as a conference member), TCU and WVU than Missouri and Texas A&M? Really? Or did you mean that you'd rather have TCU and WVU than Missouri -- in a two for one? Or did you mean -- and I'm guessing this one -- you'd rather have TCU or WVU than Missouri? If so, I'd disagree in this case. Since the conference is already well represented in the state of Texas, TCU doesn't bring a lot to the table. So the question is which program does: Missouri or WVU? I think the St Louis and Kansas City markets make Missouri more attractive. In any case, I think that the SEC has done a great job of expansion and has brought in two comparatively top programs that will benefit from their association with the SEC, but in doing so, the SEC has brought many more of those almighty dollar thingies into the coffers. And in all honesty, if the Big 12/8/10ish end up with TCU and WVU instead of A&M and Missouri, then I don't think they have improved themselves and I would argue they took a step backwards. I think TCU and WVU are and will be better FB programs then Missouri and in case of WVU is a better basketball program by far then Missouri. I get why SEC took A&M and Missouri--as it helps expand but doesn't threaten their elite programs from monopolizing the league. I highly doubt you'll ever see Vandy, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas, Missouri ever win the SEC in next 25-50 years. It will be Bama, LSU, UF, Auburn, UGA, Tennessee, as usual and A&M could get better but don't see that happening for at least a decade and a real coach--not Francione Part II (Sherman). At least A&M has a great enviornment, and ability to be an elite program. Arkansas is a fraud--they are like Michigan State of Big 10, pretty record, never beat elite teams, and act like they are big time.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,438
|
Post by hoyarooter on Nov 8, 2011 21:36:51 GMT -5
I actually think the Big XII is on their way to being better. I'd rather have WVU and TCU then Missouri and A&M while a good program--isn't worth keeping if they are wanting to leave. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that you'd rather have (as a conference member), TCU and WVU than Missouri and Texas A&M? Really? Or did you mean that you'd rather have TCU and WVU than Missouri -- in a two for one? Or did you mean -- and I'm guessing this one -- you'd rather have TCU or WVU than Missouri? If so, I'd disagree in this case. Since the conference is already well represented in the state of Texas, TCU doesn't bring a lot to the table. So the question is which program does: Missouri or WVU? I think the St Louis and Kansas City markets make Missouri more attractive. In any case, I think that the SEC has done a great job of expansion and has brought in two comparatively top programs that will benefit from their association with the SEC, but in doing so, the SEC has brought many more of those almighty dollar thingies into the coffers. And in all honesty, if the Big 12/8/10ish end up with TCU and WVU instead of A&M and Missouri, then I don't think they have improved themselves and I would argue they took a step backwards. I think TCU and WVU are and will be better FB programs then Missouri and in case of WVU is a better basketball program by far then Missouri. I get why SEC took A&M and Missouri--as it helps expand but doesn't threaten their elite programs from monopolizing the league. I highly doubt you'll ever see Vandy, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas, Missouri ever win the SEC in next 25-50 years. It will be Bama, LSU, UF, Auburn, UGA, Tennessee, as usual and A&M could get better but don't see that happening for at least a decade and a real coach--not Francione Part II (Sherman). At least A&M has a great enviornment, and ability to be an elite program. Arkansas is a fraud--they are like Michigan State of Big 10, pretty record, never beat elite teams, and act like they are big time. Bubba Smith is going to come back from the dead and sit on you. Of course, that is going back to well before you were born. RIP, Bubba!
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Nov 11, 2011 11:35:13 GMT -5
Recurring weekly posts in this thread are typically titled "Games That Matter." This week, the post should probably be billed as "games that seem to matter a lot less now." Why do the games matter in the first place? In an article for Grantland.com slamming Penn State, Michael Weinreb put it this way: "[T]his is why college football evokes such extreme emotion, and this is why schools work so damn hard and often take ethical shortcuts to forge themselves into football powers: If they are successful, then the game serves as the lifelong bond between alums and townspeople and the university, thereby guaranteeing the institution's self-preservation through donations and season-ticket sales and infusions into the local economy. It is a crass calculus, when you put it that way, which is why there will always be skeptics and there will always be those of us for whom college football is (other than our own families) the purest emotional attachment of our adulthood, and there will always be some of us who bound between those two poles." www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7205085/growing-penn-stateThe person responsible for this website attended Georgetown during the best year of Georgetown basketball. The fact that I am posting here is evidence of what successful college athletic programs on a national level can do for a university's reputation in the world and alumni interest in the school's continued success. The culture of college athletics requires change. The mindset we called "Hoya Paranoia" seems to bear at least some resemblance to a mindset in which a graduate assistant does not intervene or call police when he sees a young child being raped. I can't say for sure what changes are needed or how they must be implemented, but I hope and believe that positive change will come from the terrible crimes at Penn State. In the meantime, I'll continue to cheer for my schools' success in athletic competitions, and I am hopeful that I will see the better side of humanity on display on the court and on the field. Week 11 Picks for Games That Matter: Virginia Tech defeated Georgia Tech (Thursday) Nebraska over Penn State Akron over Kent State for the Wagon Wheel Wisconsin over Minnesota for Paul Bunyan's Axe Miami over Florida State Boise State over TCU (last real test for the Broncos) Georgia over Auburn in the Oldest Rivalry in the Deep South UAB over Memphis in the Battle for the Bones (for The Bones, duh) Florida International over Florida Atlantic in the Shula Bowl for the Don Shula Award Stanford over Oregon
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 11, 2011 13:41:16 GMT -5
The mindset we called "Hoya Paranoia" seems to bear at least some resemblance to a mindset in which a graduate assistant does not intervene or call police when he sees a young child being raped. I'm sorry, but if you truly think that, then you simply don't get it at all.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Nov 11, 2011 14:21:00 GMT -5
The mindset we called "Hoya Paranoia" seems to bear at least some resemblance to a mindset in which a graduate assistant does not intervene or call police when he sees a young child being raped. I'm sorry, but if you truly think that, then you simply don't get it at all. I think you're reading something in my statement that's not there. Sports culture in general demands that almost any issue be dealt with internally rather than externally. There's a benefit to this: it develops loyalty and camaraderie. Such systems exist throughout athletics. I simply pointed out that such a system, if I'm not mistaken, once existed famously at Georgetown. If I'm misapplying the term "Hoya Paranoia," please educate me. The obvious difference (I hope) between what happened at PSU and everywhere else is that the sexual assault of children crosses a line so that it is not dealt with internally, but rather externally by law enforcement. I would substitute "felonies" or "crimes" for "sexual assault," but how many instances can you think of where a player was suspended for an "undisclosed violation of team rules?"
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 11, 2011 15:04:31 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but if you truly think that, then you simply don't get it at all. I think you're reading something in my statement that's not there. Sports culture in general demands that almost any issue be dealt with internally rather than externally. There's a benefit to this: it develops loyalty and camaraderie. Such systems exist throughout athletics. I simply pointed out that such a system, if I'm not mistaken, once existed famously at Georgetown. If I'm misapplying the term "Hoya Paranoia," please educate me. The obvious difference (I hope) between what happened at PSU and everywhere else is that the sexual assault of children crosses a line so that it is not dealt with internally, but rather externally by law enforcement. I would substitute "felonies" or "crimes" for "sexual assault," but how many instances can you think of where a player was suspended for an "undisclosed violation of team rules?" Yes. And no. Big John dealt with things internally. However most players would probably tell you they would rather have faced the law than Big John when it came to misdeeds. I sense that at Penn State, Joe Pa was a much more benevolent despot when it came to overlooking transgressions.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 12, 2011 19:16:03 GMT -5
At work and not watching the Boise State - TCU game. How bad was the pass interference call to keep the [ultimately unsuccessful] Boise State drive alive?
|
|