I only need 3 reasons why UT will beat Tech

by Robertpz on Oct 30, 2008 9:31 AM CDT

1) UT's passing defense will step up - It should be worth noting that we gave up an average of 100 yards per game vs. our 3 previously ranked opponents to their 6'6" 270lbs tight ends. A lot of things are big in Lubbock, but TEs aren't one of them. True, the WRs for Tech are great, but physically I like our chances much better matched up against the likes of them vs. some of the man-beasts we have faced in October. As Muschamp has said we can give up yards all we want, but points are what counts at the end of the game.

2) Who has Tech beat? - Their opponents have a combined record of 31-34 -
TAMU (3-5; by the late 4th quarter), Nebraska (in OT; 5-3), Eastern Washington (4-4), Nevada (4-4), UMass (5-3), SMU (1-8), KSU (4-4), Kansas (5-3; stellar wins over Sam Houston St. and FIU). Texas is like a geeky kid on jolt cola the morning of SATs coming into this game vs. Tech's version of a bully at a special ed school getting transferred to Compton High.

3) History is a ***** - Since 1995, vs. the next opponent the week after Texas Tech has defeated a ranked opponent, they have only one once (2001). Their only win vs. a ranked opponent this year is Kansas. Their next opponent is Texas. Hmmmm.....

Not bad! And I didn't even have to mention Colt McCoy! Oops!

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Leach is brilliant offensively but...............

Mike Leach is a great offensive mind but has ALWAYS focused on the pass to the detriment of the run game and it has cost him dearly in games against elite teams – 10 yards rushing in 2007 game versus Texas. Also, he will usually play like a pirate at certain critical times in a game – 4th down go for it, not kick field go that he should take, etc. and this has bit him hard a few times against both Texas and Oklahoma.

Reminds me that he wants to be considered on level of Bob S. at OU/ Mack and instead of being smart and patient, goes for the home run.

by texascfo on Oct 30, 2008 9:43 AM CDT reply actions

#2 is why I'm putting money on the game.

by ryanlionrah on Oct 30, 2008 9:47 AM CDT reply actions

My main reason....

…is that Tech played a stellar game last week. (Although I think the final score was a little misleading – those 3 interceptions by Reesing allowed Tech to extend the lead quite a bit and force KU to pass, pass, pass and try to catch up in a hurry.)

And Texas in some respects was sub-par in some areas. So….

…this means Texas will be focused, patient, and methodical on offense; hungry and determined on defense. And I do not think Tech will be able to sustain their stellar performance (for 4 qtrs) – especially with our defense, our patient offense, and the prime time lights of national television.

by UTHorns on Oct 30, 2008 9:55 AM CDT reply actions

reading that post

Has relaxed me some, I didn’t realize that their opposition was so poor

"There aint nothin' over till it's over. "
~Rocky Balboa

by Hook'em13 on Oct 30, 2008 11:05 AM CDT reply actions

Tech surreptitiously slipping into our posts...

they have only one once (2001)

Once is one too many.

by whills on Oct 30, 2008 11:47 AM CDT reply actions

We lost to them in 2002

In Lubbock. Vasher was injured and Derrick Johnson got hurt. Lost 42-38.

If they were coming to Austin, I’d feel pretty comfortable. However, here’s how the games in Lubbock have gone the past few times:

2002: Loss
2004: Needed winning drive led by Chance Mock
2006: Got down 21-0, pulled out a 35-31 win.

So while we’ve won two of the past three in Lubbock, it’s been tough.

by TheElusiveShadow on Oct 30, 2008 12:44 PM CDT reply actions

2004 game in Lubbock

Score was actually 51-21. The Chance drive was from the 2003 game at DKR for a 43-40 final.

…not that it makes me feel any better about playing there.

by gwh65 on Oct 30, 2008 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions

Thanks. And yeah, it doesn't make me feel better

by TheElusiveShadow on Oct 30, 2008 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions

Misspelled a word, but I caught it!

Since no one caught it (or made fun of me) “Since 1995, vs. the next opponent the week after Texas Tech has defeated a ranked opponent, they have only won once (2001).” I misspelled “won” with “one”. Got a little excited with my three reasons!

Something else I want to clarify before some Techster jumps is that this record of winning only once since 1995 the week after beating a ranked team was during the course of the regular season and not counting bowl games. Then again, I did say the week after and not the month after, but you know those fellas from Lubbock are feeling a wee bit frisky! :)

by Robertpz on Oct 30, 2008 2:10 PM CDT reply actions

So, you didn't read my post above? Perhaps I was too clever and kind about misspelling won. nt

by whills on Oct 30, 2008 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions

worried much?

Coming up with a lot of reasons to convince yourself we have nothing to worry about? On any given day in the Big 12 a team can beat us. If we replayed OSU in a championship game (which should be the top two teams instead of alignment used now) Texas could lose. Tech is good, how good is to be determined of course. Throwing up past opponents records is pointless. I believe Texas was ranked pretty high in 2002 and came out with a loss. Hopefully it will be a entertaining game.

by graphicalizer on Oct 30, 2008 2:35 PM CDT reply actions

for records

Check our non-conference records before you bring up anyone else’s. FA(3-5), UTEP, Rice(5-3), Ark(3-5). 14-17 overall. We haven’t faced non-conference juggernauts either.

by graphicalizer on Oct 30, 2008 3:59 PM CDT reply actions

non conference being the key word

look at the past four games

"There aint nothin' over till it's over. "
~Rocky Balboa

by Hook'em13 on Oct 30, 2008 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions

really?

seriously? wow…Tech hasn’t played anyone we’ve played but Oklahoma has. We didn’t run over Oklahoma and Tech has done the same or worse to the teams Oklahoma has played. If you want to compare notes.

by graphicalizer on Oct 30, 2008 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions

i was talking about

OUR last four games. Colorado, OU, Mizzou, and okie state. you made the point i was trying to make

"There aint nothin' over till it's over. "
~Rocky Balboa

by Hook'em13 on Oct 30, 2008 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions

What on earth did you just say?

So you are opposed to comparing one teams (Texas Tech) schedule to another (Texas), however you are willing to compare a teams schedule (Oklahoma) based on their performance in one game (against Texas) to the first teams (Texas Tech) performance across multiple games because they have had two common opponents (KU and KSU)?

Thats the most ridiculous thing Ive heard all week.

The simple fact, and point is, Tech’s opponents are a combined 31-34. which is much worse than Texas’ combined opponents at 38-25.

This is not a point of argument, this is a matter of fact.

We need this week to be over so that BON can get back to being comprehensible.

by BoddickerIsClutch on Oct 30, 2008 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs

Amen.

by ryanlionrah on Oct 30, 2008 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions

you're right Boddick

…you make total sense. this whole blog is talking about Tech’s record and who they played. The whole argument is pointless. Everything is “what if’s” so bringing up UT’s easy early conference is out of the question. Don’t dare say we had it easy leading up to the last 4 games. We don’t even know how good the North is yet either. Mizz may really suck. If Tech hasn’t faced who we have how else do compare. It is all silly stat comparisons by people that don’t play the game. We’re commenting in ridiculousville and apparently you’re the mayor.

by graphicalizer on Oct 30, 2008 5:18 PM CDT reply actions

Because you may not know.

If Tech hasn’t faced who we have how else do compare

You compare Tech’s opponents Win/Loss with Texas’s opponents Win/Loss, which is what I did above, and what Robert did originally.

If you want to get fancy, the old formula the BCS used was 75% of your opponents W/L and 25% of your opponents opponents W/L. Im sure something similar to this is used in the polls that still report SOS, where Texas is #6, #3, or #18 and Tech is #72, #113, or #91, depending on who you source.

No one is throwing away non-conference games, nor is anyone comparing just non-conference. The irrefutable point remains that Texas is undefeated playing a stronger schedule than Tech has.

Why you continue to try and argue against that fact is beyond me.

If you think this whole blog is about Tech’s record, feel free to leave now instead of after Saturday.

by BoddickerIsClutch on Oct 30, 2008 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions

Sorry to say, graphicalizer

BiC makes a good point; your comparisons between Tech and Oklahoma and then to Texas are very curious and incredibly useless.

I’ll show you why: If you want to continue your very interesting “Tech did just as good or better than OU against Team X and we barely beat OU” argument, then I can do this:

Tech barely beat Nebraska.
Nebraska got smashed by Missouri. In Lincoln.
Texas destroyed Missouri, so much so that we simply coasted in the second half.

Valid? I don’t think so. Of course, you either have to agree with this or abandon that altogether.

None of this guarantees a victory in Lubbock, but it’s certainly reasonable to point out that Texas has faced a much tougher schedule than Tech has up to this point. Nothing controversial about that. Did we have a grand non-conference schedule? No. Nobody said that. But we played three top 11 teams in a row, and Tech has only played one ranked team (#23 in the BCS, if I remember). Furthermore, I can simply take your comment about the North sucking and simply apply it to Texas Tech’s victory over Kansas… which really makes Tech’s schedule look bad.

Again, this doesn’t decide who wins this Saturday. In fact, some can even debate that this goes against Texas, because we’ll be much more emotionally and physically drained that Tech. Perhaps so. Others will say that makes us more prepared. In either case, the point remains: We’ve faced a tougher schedule so far, although Tech’s will become comparable in the future as they begin their own brutal stretch.

by TheElusiveShadow on Oct 30, 2008 6:09 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

If you would read my orginal comment is that we shouldn’t bash anyone’s “non-conference” without admitting ours sucks just as bad. The original post displays non-conference teams so that would be questioning that part of their schedule too, right?

Then I was told to look at the last four games…
TheElusiveShadow brings up good points about X playing Y. That is why looking at who Texas has beat that Tech hasn’t even played IS useless. Looking at the next four games of who Texas has played after Colorado doesn’t make any sense. Tech could play High School teams all year doesn’t change the fact they still could beat us.

As for Boddick. BCS? You bring up a system that Texas leaps really good teams because they beat Oklahoma. Florida State jumps ten spots because they beat an unranked VT. USC is still in the top 5 after losing an unranked team and squeezing one out against another unranked team. BCS is unreliable at best.

Tech has nothing to lose. Nobody expects them to win and they shouldn’t. They don’t have the program or the recruiting Texas has. They lose, nothing changes. Just another year for Tech. We’ll dismiss them as usual. They still have to play good teams after us. Texas loses then the stumbled at what should be their last test.

by graphicalizer on Oct 30, 2008 7:26 PM CDT reply actions

So that Top 10 ranking wouldn't be much to lose?

Or that niche in the BCS bowls?

Or all those pirate hats? And that special place on Santa’s list?

Poor-little-old-me on the wrong side of the tracks on the bad side of town. C’mon now, you can do better than that.

by whills on Oct 30, 2008 7:44 PM CDT up reply actions

riiiight

and you think I can do better than that? and that’s your reply? At least some of the other guys have some knowledgeable comments and insights.

Pirate hats? We’ll probably beat Tech this weekend but no denying they’re fun to watch.

by graphicalizer on Oct 31, 2008 8:51 AM CDT up reply actions

The only thing about the BCS in my post...

Was its old formula for SOS. For educational purposes only.

Whether you respect the BCS system and its ratings or not is irrelevant. You asked how do you compare schedules if the teams didn’t play the same teams, I told you the one formula I know (the old BCS formula, isn’t even used now), and then provided results from three other formulas. Which brings is again to the problem with this conversation, your unwillingness to discuss the actual points and instead result to picking minute portions of peoples discussions to blow out of proportion, and claim things which they never even said. In my estimation that brings us back to being incomprehensible, namely your lack of reading comprehension, and that then prevents you from making any sort of argument that make sense. In glad TES took up the discussion though, good luck.

by BoddickerIsClutch on Oct 31, 2008 6:54 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

you got fancy on me...

So my argument on the BCS isn’t an actual argument when we’re discussing the importance of ranks and records? Part of the claims are that Texas opponents make a difference because they’re ranked. You come back with info that isn’t even in use and a system that is suspect. Thanks for my education.

by graphicalizer on Oct 31, 2008 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions

That's exactly the issue people are having with your comments

The original post didn’t just list non-conference games; it listed all conference ones. Thus, we have the all-around tougher schedule. I guess we can debate if we wish who has the better non-conference schedule (at the least, we played Arkansas, although they are not good this year).

As for Boddick. BCS? You bring up a system that Texas leaps really good teams because they beat Oklahoma. Florida State jumps ten spots because they beat an unranked VT. USC is still in the top 5 after losing an unranked team and squeezing one out against another unranked team. BCS is unreliable at best.

Texas jumped only ONE team, because Missouri (#3) and LSU (#4) both lost, and we obviously beat #1 Oklahoma. Alabama was idle. You can debate whether or not we should have jumped them, but we didn’t jump “teams.” Furthermore, this doesn’t show one bit that the BCS is unreliable, not only because you can make a good case that Texas should have jumped ’Bama but because those are the AP rankings, which are no longer used in the BCS formula. You have to look at who loses ahead of these teams to understand why they jumped high. As for USC, they dropped out of the top five after their loss and have only slowly crawled back up.

This is not to say the BCS is great, but it is the system we use. Besides, even if we canned the BCS tomorrow, it would still be an obvious point to anyone that Texas has had stiffer competition up to this point. That’s all anyone is saying.

Tech has A LOT to lose. This is their chance to prove their worth to a national audience. Lose, and they’ll most likely lose their shot at a South Division title, the Big 12 title, and a BCS game. They’ll almost certainly be out of the national championship race. To me, that’s quite a lot to lose. Not to mention the potential to gain some recruiting power. There’s loads of pressure on Tech as well.

by TheElusiveShadow on Oct 30, 2008 8:29 PM CDT reply actions

not that it isn't a big game for them...

Obviously if you think Tech losing this weekend is a big problem for their program you haven’t watched Tech in past years. The fans don’t call them cardiac kids for nothing. They have never stepped up and done what they are “supposed” to do. They’ll lose to people like New Mexico, North Texas and then beat ranked opponents. Always trailing Oklahoma and Texas in the Big 12. Yet here they are with a bunch of talented players. Their failings in the past haven’t caused them not to close that gap. Not to mention the task of getting any player to go to Lubbock. As long as they don’t get blown out they gain respect and national attention of being legit. Plus they have some more worries in the future. If they lose to us in a close game they shouldn’t drop far and still have to beat OK and OSU for a chance at a BCS bowl game. Hey, if Kansas can do it anyone can, right?

by graphicalizer on Oct 30, 2008 8:57 PM CDT reply actions

Fellas...Fellas...

First, kudos to whills for not busting my chops on the misspelling.

Second, the total combined records of the teams that Tech have played vs. the teams that Texas has played included BOTH non-conference and conference games. If you read my following comment that “Texas is like a geeky kid on jolt cola the morning of SATs coming into this game vs. Tech’s version of a bully at a special ed school getting transferred to Compton High.”, which, besides being visually creative, drew attention to the fact that Texas has had better opportunities vs. quality opponents leading up to this game than Tech. Clearly, neither non-conference schedule was nothing to brag about although Arkansas was suppose to have McFadden still playing, which isn’t our fault.

Finally, I am not trying to be all-knowing on how the game will turn out. I just think that Tech has more to worry about coming into this game than Texas. Texas has worked their schedule brilliantly, first by playing non-conference opponents that, while not great, throw the ball alot. Thus, each passing attempt was also a trial by fire for our young secondary. Also, along the way we discovered that Cody Johnson is our 2008 version of Henry Melton when it comes to the goalline. While our running game is still a work in the progress, our OL and our WRs have allowed Colt McCoy to build an out-of-nowhere Heisman campaign.

To sum it up, I am excited to be a Longhorns fan and I have the utmost confidence the team will continue to rise to the occasion based on not only my comments, but by other BON members as well.

Remember to be careful driving out there tonight on Halloween as there may lurk some Techsters dressed in black!

by Robertpz on Oct 31, 2008 10:35 AM CDT reply actions

What will actually happen

1. Colt injured: we lose

2. Texas defense excels: we win big

3. Scoring shoot out: who knows? (Tech’s chance to win)

Wildcard: Harrell may have become spoiled by his awesome offensive line with their wide sets. If this happens, Texas will sack and harrass him and win the game.

by epepep on Oct 31, 2008 10:59 PM CDT reply actions