Johnny Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 they ought to be at least #2 still dont you think?
Chilly Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 they ought to be at least #2 still dont you think? 489496[/snapback] Yeah, without a doubt, especially since we won by a pretty good amount. That last touchdown that we scored was pretty important.
Chilly Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 By the way, how about Vince Young? Passing - 239 yards Rushing - 261 yards Man, thats just sick.
Mikie2times Posted October 30, 2005 Author Posted October 30, 2005 Riiiiight, thats why we beat Ohio State and creamed Texas Tech. Because Texas can't handle success. Thats one of the biggest loads of bull sh-- I've heard in a long time. Every team gets tested by opponents that they don't expect to get tested by. It happens each and every year in college football. This is nothing new. I seem to remember a game, Arizona vs USC, where USC was only up by 7 after the 3rd quarter. I seem to remember another game, Arizon State, where USC was down 21-3 at halftime and down by 4 after the 3rd quarter. Yet no one was saying that USC can't handle success. No one was saying that they are showing an arrogant attitude by being confident that they would come back from a 21-3 deficit at half-time, and being down by 4 after the 3rd quarter. Cut the bull sh-- out. Oh, and by the way, Touchdown Texas, we have the lead going into the 4th quarter by 6. 489470[/snapback] Texas has gone to two conference championship games under Mack Brown, losing both. They have yet to win a conference championship game, or conference title since Mack Brown has taken over. Texas is a preseason national champion and have been for many years, unfortunately that’s all they have to show for. Now in a year in which the Big 12 is far and away the weakest major conference in the nation the Texas fans are screaming how good they're. Ohio State was a great win, but it lost its original luster when the Nittany Lions defeated them for the second time. As for the all mighty scoring machine known as Texas Tech, the only game they won worth a crap was Nebraska, and that’s saying the Bill Callahan led Cornhuskers are a quality team. Outside of Nebraska Texas Tech beat 3 division 2 schools, Kansas, Kansas State, and let those mighty Baylor Bears take them into the 4th only trailing by 6, and oh by the way Baylor also completly shut down Texas Techs passing attack. It took a complete BS offensive pass interference call, and a 4 and 16 conversion last year for Texas to squeeze one out against Kansas. Then today they let a team that has been beat by an average score of 44 to 11 against Iowa State, Colorado, and Texas AM take a 16 point lead into half time. A Texas a player said this week the only thing that can stop them is the plague. Well that plague almost came today, and had it not been against the bottom feeders of the Big 12 they would have lost. I'm sure today's performance compares to a USC team that has won 30 straight and had a bull’s eye on them for the better part of three years. Unlike USC, Texas hasn't been able to win a conference championship, let alone a national title. Now the bull’s eye is on them, and over the last 7 years they never passed the test. They SHOULD win the Big 12 this year, but if both them and VT win out VT should go. Texas will cry foul, and probably end up losing the bowl game anyway. That is of course if you follow Texas under Mack Brown, which you obviously are not.
Chilly Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 Texas has gone to two conference championship games under Mack Brown, losing both. They have yet to win a conference championship game, or conference title since Mack Brown has taken over. Texas is a preseason national champion and have been for many years, unfortunately that’s all they have to show for. www.rosebowl.com Now in a year in which the Big 12 is far and away the weakest major conference in the nation the Texas fans are screaming how good they're. Ohio State was a great win, but it lost its original luster when the Nittany Lions defeated them for the second time. As for the all mighty scoring machine known as Texas Tech, the only game they won worth a crap was Nebraska, and that’s saying the Bill Callahan led Cornhuskers are a quality team. Outside of Nebraska Texas Tech beat 3 division 2 schools, Kansas, Kansas State, and let those mighty Baylor Bears take them into the 4th only trailing by 6, and oh by the way Baylor also completly shut down Texas Techs passing attack So, then let's compare the strength of schedule for the top 3 teams right now. UT --- 33-28 2 top 10 teams USC --- 27-35 1 top 10 team It took a complete BS offensive pass interference call, and a 4 and 16 conversion last year for Texas to squeeze one out against Kansas. Then today they let a team that has been beat by an average score of 44 to 11 against Iowa State, Colorado, and Texas AM take a 16 point lead into half time. As yes, the whole "well, LAST YEAR you guys did this, so you must not be as good THIS YEAR as you say you are" argument. Newsflash: This team is much better than last year's team. So, you wanna talk about halftime leads again huh? Lets take a look at USC (as I did in a previous post): Arizona State, a team which is 4-4 and lost 31-17 to Oregon, had an 18 point lead at half-time versus USC. They were also up by only a touchdown versus 2-6 Arizona going into the 4th quarter. A Texas a player said this week the only thing that can stop them is the plague. Well that plague almost came today, and had it not been against the bottom feeders of the Big 12 they would have lost. I'm sure today's performance compares to a USC team that has won 30 straight and had a bull’s eye on them for the better part of three years. Unlike USC, Texas hasn't been able to win a conference championship, let alone a national title. Now the bull’s eye is on them, and over the last 7 years they never passed the test. They SHOULD win the Big 12 this year, but if both them and VT win out VT should go. Texas will cry foul, and probably end up losing the bowl game anyway. That is of course if you follow Texas under Mack Brown, which you obviously are not. 489515[/snapback] Obviously you aren't following Texas under Mack Brown if you think that this year's team is like any other year's team under Mack Brown. The reason why the player said that the only thing that can stop them is the plauge is because they have extreme confidence this year, and a swagger that they haven't ever had other years at UT. This team is much improved over last year's team, and every other team before this. In previous years, they would have lost this game versus Oklahoma State. Every previous year under Mack Brown, they have a game like this, and they LOSE it. This year, they refused to lose, and they came through to win the game. In the past, they would have blown up. This year, they came back from behind tow in, which shows a ton of character. The offense is better then ever before under Mack Brown, the defense is better then ever before under Mack Brown, and the team overall is better then ever under Mack Brown. So please, before you go spouting bull sh--, have some facts to back yourself up with.
Mikie2times Posted October 30, 2005 Author Posted October 30, 2005 Big time college football programs measure success in conference championships, Texas has a big fat zero in that category since Mac Brown, that’s a fact. If a 1 point Rose Bowl win against a team coming off a 16 point thrashing at the hands of a 6-4 team makes up for the lack of conference titles so be it. As for your SOS who in the Big 12 is good? You'll probably say Texas Tech, but again please look who they've won against. The rest of the Big 12 is like a round robin for the mediocre, of course somebody has to win in that conference if they keep playing each other. Outside of conference play none of the Big 12 teams has beaten anybody worth a crap. Texas is not any better this year then the teams that could never get past Oklahoma, it's just that Oklahoma isn't Oklahoma this year, and everybody else in the Big 12 is playing like they have the last few years. We could go back and fourth all night with this, but after Texas beat Ohio State my prediction got delayed until the Bowl games. Not one real contender existed on the Longhorns schedule past Ohio State, and the pollsters will see that sooner or later. If VTECH wins out, which they will, Texas will not be going to the National Title game. Regardless things will work themselves out because they will be exposed in the bowl game no matter who they play. Let’s just kill this debate for now, let the season play out, and talk about this at the end of the year. If I'm wrong I'll eat crow, if not you can have a peace, either way all were doing is arguing opinions. and as Lee Corso says in NCAA 2006, opinions are like --- holes.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 The whole thingh seemsoretty straightforward. If you care most about colloges as educational institutions, the footbsll desdon akready takes up too much class/book time, dominates enough camouses so education is secondary to athletics, and needs so much money to attract tne best players and keep the traveling squads big thar even with massive directrevenue from TV sales and tickets it is a net money loser and needs to be scaled back rather than lengthened with a playoff. Alternately, I know it often is a specific money loser but by maintaining ties of alums and excitement the full income is the heightened gifts to instotutions that come with a winning squad. In addirion, he game provides entertainment for the masses and in reality as money talks and all else walksthe educational role of academic institutions is secondary in this society. Finally, collrge footbal provides a massive subsidy to the NFL as teams like our Bills fo not hsve to pay for their oen minor leagues the way MLB does> Though this subsidy is often at taxpayer expense when state schools pay using yout dollars for the sport, these expenses are so under the radar they are ignored and thus it is a non issue. Personallh, i have a moderate view. A playoff would solve many sport issues (at least eaach year, as Hollywppd Henderson said about the SB, if its so important why do they play it every year) but the schools are really for academics. Still even though the cost of football id pretty unjudtifisble sdudent athletes could get the same education about team work with shorter schedules and restricted travel, facts on the ground are simply fscts and footbsll dhould not be scaled back. In the end I like the arguments back and forth about who is number one and two.
KD in CA Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 If you care most about colloges as educational institutions, the footbsll desdon akready takes up too much class/book time, dominates enough camouses so education is secondary to athletics, and needs so much money to attract tne best players and keep the traveling squads big thar even with massive directrevenue from TV sales and tickets it is a net money loser and needs to be scaled back rather than lengthened with a playoff. I don't lose too much sleep over the players' time away from the classroom. Guys that know they aren't pro material have a choice to not play. And for the guys who are getting the $100,000 free ride -- in return for that scholarship, they ought to be able to manage their committments to work and football, the same way another student has to handle class and working to pay his tuition.
Chilly Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 The whole thingh seemsoretty straightforward. If you care most about colloges as educational institutions, the footbsll desdon akready takes up too much class/book time, dominates enough camouses so education is secondary to athletics, and needs so much money to attract tne best players and keep the traveling squads big thar even with massive directrevenue from TV sales and tickets it is a net money loser and needs to be scaled back rather than lengthened with a playoff. Alternately, I know it often is a specific money loser but by maintaining ties of alums and excitement the full income is the heightened gifts to instotutions that come with a winning squad. In addirion, he game provides entertainment for the masses and in reality as money talks and all else walksthe educational role of academic institutions is secondary in this society. Finally, collrge footbal provides a massive subsidy to the NFL as teams like our Bills fo not hsve to pay for their oen minor leagues the way MLB does> Though this subsidy is often at taxpayer expense when state schools pay using yout dollars for the sport, these expenses are so under the radar they are ignored and thus it is a non issue. Personallh, i have a moderate view. A playoff would solve many sport issues (at least eaach year, as Hollywppd Henderson said about the SB, if its so important why do they play it every year) but the schools are really for academics. Still even though the cost of football id pretty unjudtifisble sdudent athletes could get the same education about team work with shorter schedules and restricted travel, facts on the ground are simply fscts and footbsll dhould not be scaled back. In the end I like the arguments back and forth about who is number one and two. 489562[/snapback] How much did you have to drink last night?
Mikie2times Posted October 30, 2005 Author Posted October 30, 2005 How much did you have to drink last night? 489642[/snapback] Haha, was thinking the same thing.
Chilly Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 Haha, was thinking the same thing. 489717[/snapback] lol thats funny. Go Bills!
.thumb.png.1b7fb4086290c3afc001a7900b31fab0.png)
Recommended Posts