Bevo's Daily Roundup - November 5, 2009
"Our theme now will be to play to the standard of the best team in the country," Brown said.
"We want to be the best in the country, and we can improve in so many areas.
We are good right now, but we can get better. "The other thing that we have
challenged our guys with is if you are going to be a great team that goes
undefeated, you have to be excited to play every week, and that's
hard to do. A lot of people can't do that, but that's part of the magic of
being a great team. You have to be able to get rid of Oklahoma State today,
and you have to be able to get ready for Central Florida. If you can't do that
then you are not one of the best teams in the country.
The Longhorn special teams have their own club. Colt McCoy can't even join.
"We actually like to say that you buy a membership," Akina said. "Recently Curtis Brown decided to buy a membership when he blocked a kick against Missouri. He had been debating whether or not to join, and he finally did. We were excited to get a new member."
"We've got seven current members," Akina said. "The most we've ever had in one year is 10, and that was 2005."
The unit has become so popular that even the biggest of stars want to be a part of it.
But despite being a Heisman Trophy runner-up, McCoy's not welcome as a member of the block party.
More motivational techniques. This time they are using sticks.
"We took little sticks this week at the pregame meal and we had each individual player break his stick," Brown said.
"Then we had them put the pieces together in a plank to let them know that together we can be strong. We've got to keep that mind-set."
Team Automatic. Hunter Lawrence is accurate.
There’s a reason the Texas coaches refer to them as Team Automatic. The Longhorns haven’t been quite perfect in kicking field goals this season, but they’ve been pretty close.
Kicker Hunter Lawrence has made 16 of his 18 attempts, seeing one blocked and one 54-yard attempt hit the crossbar.
He’s also made 36 of 37 extra points.
"Hunter’s been so accurate," said Texas head coach Mack Brown. "He’s done everything we’ve asked; he hits them right down the middle."
Colt McCoy won't say it, but you can probably go ahead and book that flight to Pasadena.
After helping his team rout Oklahoma State 41-14, the Texas quarterback was asked this week if it's difficult for the No. 2 Longhorns to not look ahead, not just to the Big 12 Championship but also beyond.
"I think it's hard for y'all not to think about it," he said. "For us, we understand that there is a lot of football left to play. We are through the first two parts of our season. I don't know if Coach (Mack) Brown told you about the first four and second four, and we have four more now, and it's the most important part right now.
"We've got to finish, and it's just one more step to that."
Mack Brown talks to Jim Rome about the season.
Barking Carnival is not impressed with the the University of Central Florida.
First of all, screw these guys.
I hate their erector set stadium, their fan base too dumb to gain entrance into Florida State, their resume-padding ruddy-faced coach, their color schemes, the sprawling sack of flatland swamp theme park offal of Orlando, and the fact that Kevin Smith tore our ass two years ago when we still played defense like Truman Capote. I also hate the fact that I confuse them with South Florida, Florida International, Florida Atlantic, Stetson, and, oddly enough, The Colorado School of Mines.
This week's opponent: UCF
Tackling has been an issue and now there's coverage. But the good news is that you have three more days to work on this before you meet the No. 2 team in the country.
While the Knights' veteran front seven have put heavy pressure on opposing teams, the secondary has given up a lot of deep passes.
O'Leary said UCF's defensive backs are shadowing receivers properly but waiting too long to break up passes. He blamed the pass coverage problems on youth and inexperience.
"We're there to make a play, we're just not playing the ball," O'Leary said. "We're too involved with the man all the time. So that's been a big work point this week in practice."
Basketball
It's time.
On Avery Bradley: "I've never seen a guy have that many put-back dunks at 6-foot-3,"
senior forward Damion James said. Adds coach Rick Barnes: "He guards the
basketball as well as anybody you'll ever see."
Damion James is impressive. But you knew that.
Damion James, the Longhorn forward who auditioned for NBA teams last spring before opting for a senior year in college, has returned as a more mature, efficient player.
That was evident during a scrimmage the Longhorns had with Davidson on Saturday in the Erwin Center.
We don't have any concerns, either. Texas is going to be good this year. Damn good.
Texas was going to be plenty good anyway. But two days before the NBA draft withdrawal deadline, Damion James sid he'd play for Texas as a senior and upgraded the Longhorns' expectations in the process.
This could be Rick Barnes' best team, one so good that Barnes shrugs when asked what worries him about this bunch.
"I don't know if I'd say I have any concerns right now," Barnes says. "You know, I love the fact that we're going to have great competition."
Rick Barnes has stockpiled talent.
Not only has he been stockpiling talent in Austin for 11 years -- including such players as LaMarcus Aldridge, Kevin Durant and D.J. Augustin -- but if you check his teams' records, you'll find the hoops 'Horns have hooked 'em best when they've been deeper than Durant's pockets.
Barnes' only Final Four team, in 2002-03, had nine players who averaged double-figure minutes and a 10th who averaged 9.9 minutes per game. His Sweet 16 team the next year had a whopping 11 players who averaged more than 10 minutes. Everyone on his 2005-06 Elite Eight team played at least 5.4 minutes.
Get the feeling he can manage the minutes? "It's a situation I'd rather be in," Barnes said. "It's pretty simple. When you have a lot of guys who deserve to play, then everyone is accountable. If you do it in practice, then you're going to play. I'm not one of those guys who believes in players who do it only when the lights come on. You have to show up every day."
We're deep. Texas' depth and talent put the Horns as one of the best teams in the nation.
The bottom line is that no one has more overall talent up and down the roster than the boys in Austin.
Dexter Pittman and the Horns have a goal.
"People may say we're a great team right now, and we've got a lot of good players and stuff," Pittman said. "But there's a lot of areas where we need to improve. We're all dedicated and we're all going for one goal, and that's the Final Four."
Texas Sports interviews freshman Shawn Williams.
What are your thoughts on being part of what some say is one of the best freshman classes to ever come to Texas? It feels good. It's always good to be considered one of the best. I'm looking forward to it.
What are you going to have to do to earn playing time? The main thing is playing defense. That's always a key factor. If you can't stop anybody, you're not going to play anyway, no matter who you are. That's what I'm working on right now.
Rush The Court previews the Big 12 Conference.
Linebacker Von Miller leads the nation in sacks. And horse-collars?
Miller, a pass rusher from Dallas, leads the nation with 13.5 sacks through eight contests — with four regular-season games and probably a bowl game to go. Green, now an associate vice president with the university's 12th Man Foundation, owns the school's single-season sack record with 20, set in 1979.
Athlon Sports tries to figure out what is going on in the Big 12 North.
The Big 12 now plays defense. The defenses have made this year very unpredictable.
It’s a new year in the Big 12. An unpredictable year. A year that has seen the once seemingly unstoppable offenses stopped, and the after-thought defenses step up.
Drama in Lawrence. Is there dissension between Mark Mangino and Todd Reesing?
"I think (the media) make it a big deal," Mangino said. "It’s not a big deal. When you look at the circumstances and what has taken place over a period of time, it was the appropriate thing to do."
But Reesing told the Lawrence Journal-World he viewed the situation differently.
"It was a big deal to me," Reesing told the Journal-World. "It is what it is. It’s above my pay grade. It’s his decision. (But) I’m still the starting quarterback here, there’s no doubt about that. This job is not up for grabs. I’m going to move forward."
"I guess you can take it for what it is," he said. "I don’t know if he was trying to send a message, or if he just wanted to let Kale play a little bit. I don’t have an explanation. It happened, it’s over, we’re moving forward."
The Kansas City Star's Jason Whitlock did not approve of Reesing's benching.
Mangino’s decision to bench Todd Reesing late in the Jayhawks’ loss to Texas Tech signals that the 12-1 season of 2007 and the Orange Bowl victory mean nothing in 2009. Not to Mangino, the Janet "What Have You Done For Me Lately?" Jackson of college football coaches.
Who cares that Reesing saved Mangino’s job and reputation and earned his coach additional millions by leading Kansas to a magical 12-1 season and top-10 ranking? Who cares that Reesing is the best Kansas quarterback since John Hadl?
And who really cares that the only way Kansas was going to erase Tech’s 14-point advantage was Reesing catching fire in the final seven minutes
A while ago a Kansas win over Kansas State was a given. Not any more.
In the last three weeks, the Jayhawks have plummeted. They were shockingly defeated by a bad Colorado team, and although it’s not exactly shocking that they lost to Oklahoma and Texas Tech, the way they lost those games was certainly surprising. Whereas quarterback Todd Reesing had earned a reputation of taking good care of the ball — he threw only seven interceptions all season in 2007 — he has become a turnover machine with seven of them in just the last three games, and that has been the biggest shortfall in KU’s pitfall.
Meanwhile, K-State has awakened from their slumber and has everyone thinking that the giant might be back. The Wildcats looked like they’d be a joke this year after barely winning by four over Massachusetts (who lost to Delaware by 16), losing to Louisiana (who lost to Florida Atlantic by 22), and getting pummeled by 52 against Texas Tech. Left for dead, KSU mystified everyone by beating Texas A&M by 48 for a one-week, 100-point turnaround, and then they proved it wasn’t a complete fluke by beating Colorado and only losing by 12 at Oklahoma.
Bill Snyder just wants a little balance.
"We have to become a more balanced football team," he said Tuesday with preparation under way for Saturday's 11:30 a.m. Big 12 North showdown with rival Kansas at Snyder Family Stadium. "I think that's important to our program, at least in my eyes."
But, the fact remains that the Wildcats' bread and butter so far has been a rushing attack that ranks third in the league and 32nd nationally with 182.3 yards a game. They're last in the conference in passing at 175 a game.
Dan Hawkins is in a must-win situation in Colorado.
Colorado coach Dan Hawkins returned to normal this week at his media luncheon today. There was no long, introspective opening statement, reading of letters of support or acknowledgement of mistakes made as was the case a week ago.
Hawkins stayed with a business as usual approach in discussing last week's homecoming loss to Missouri and this Saturday's home game against a Texas A&M team he called "very electric."
The Buffs are in must-win mode for the rest of the season. Another loss would eliminate them from the postseason.
Zac Robinson will surpass Mike Gundy's passing record at Oklahoma State.
So now you tell us. Bob Stoops just wasn't as optimistic about his offensive line as his offensive coordinator.
He was "a lot more so than I was," Stoops said Tuesday during his weekly press conference. "You never heard me that way."
Before the season, Wilson publicly built up the potential of the Sooner line, even though only two of its members, tackle Trent Williams and guard Brian Simmons, had played meaningful snaps in their careers.
More from Bob on that offensive line:
"Little bit of everything in it. We got caught thin with a big graduating class. Not often do you have five guys that leave all at once. It’s fair to say, sure, we’ve had guys leave or had to remove guys because they didn’t go to class or don’t do what the team requires them to do. Then development, a lot of that’s on those guys. Certain guys have a better work ethic than other guys to get themselves ready to play. Overall, this unit’s got caught thin, got caught inexperienced, development isn’t what it needs to be. It’s a little bit of everything."
Did someone tell Sam Bradford?
Does Stoops want Nebraska to become a powerhouse program again?
"I'd rather they didn't," Stoops said with a chuckle Tuesday.
No one wants Boise State. The Broncos want to schedule a BCS team in 2011, but no one is biting.
WAC commissioner Karl Benson told the Idaho Statesman on Wednesday that Boise State is struggling to schedule a BCS-conference opponent for 2011 — even with the help (and exposure and money) of ESPN behind the effort.
The Broncos are not asking for a return game in Boise. Just one road game. And about 10 teams have turned the Broncos down, according to Benson.
"They're running into a situation where nobody will schedule them, nobody will take them," Benson told the Statesman's Chadd Cripe.
No one is naming names, but here are some teams that have openings in 2011, according to nationalchamps.net: Michigan, Oklahoma, Arizona, Texas A&M, Alabama (though the Crimson Tide plays at Penn State in 2011), Texas, Oklahoma State
Among the teams whose schedules are full for 2011: UCLA, Penn State, Tennessee, Florida, USC
A TCU-Boise State match up in a bowl game? Not likely.
As for the TV ratings, it’s hard to imagine the Fiesta people being anxious for a return showing in the Idaho market. When Boise State beat Oklahoma in that memorable overtime 2007 game, it drew the third-lowest TV ratings for a BCS game ever.
There’s the problem. If Congress or the Mountain West Conference or anybody wants to "fix" the BCS, it needs to amend the selection procedure so that the most deserving teams get invited to the other four games, rather than the teams that will make the bowls the most money.
It is all about the money. Iowa State gets a bigger payday on ABC, but it is really just about the exposure.
ABC television picking up Saturday's Iowa State game, and scheduling it for 2:30 p.m., means $301,000 for the Cyclones' athletic department - considerably more than the $175,000 gained if the Versus Network picked up the game.
"We're just glad to get television exposure on a regional basis across the country," Pollard said. "I'm sure our fans will appreciate having an afternoon game."
This could only happen in California. Cal's faculty wants to end subsidies for athletic programs.
With the University of California rocked by an economic crisis, a group of faculty members is calling on the school's athletics department to get its financial house in order and for the school to stop subsidizing the athletics budget.Brian Barsky, a professor of computer science, and seven other faculty members have written a resolution that calls for Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau to end the school's subsidization of athletics, draw up plan for the athletics department to pay off its debt and mandate that the department stay out of the red.
Lots of spin. Athletic departments use PR to make their case in the BCS.
There's been plenty of stumping and spinning this week that had nothing to do with Tuesday's elections. About a month before the final Bowl Championship Series standings are released, some college football programs have cranked up their campaigns.
The talking heads do not like Iowa. The Hawkeyes do not get national respect.
Some national pundits have turned the University of Iowa's bid for college football perfection into a punch line.
On Web sites, radio or television, someone often is aiming a zinger at coach Kirk Ferentz's team - the only 9-0 team in the country.
0 recs |
44 comments
| Add comment
|
Comments
Basketball. It's time.
Maybe awiggo or txtwstr could give us an update on the walkons? When I checked the team photos there are a couple of skinny white guys that I’ve not seen before, so I’m assuming they are walkons. Are they cannon fodder or will the be able to contribute minutes against the middle of the Big XII?
Still a Blaine Irby fan
by patienthornsfan on Nov 5, 2009 4:51 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I dont know them...
…but, with this roster, I think it’s safe to say they are cannon fodder.
by txtwstr7 on Nov 5, 2009 9:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bob Stoops is a dick.
The offensive live is everyone’s fault but his: The OC was overly optimistic. Guys didn’t go to class. Too many guys graduated. What a load of crap.
I know Mack gets dinged sometimes for being a nice guy, but I’ll take our nice guy six days a week and twice on Sunday over some asshole that shoulders no blame for his team’s suck.
Really? Does my signature suck?
by adt2 on Nov 5, 2009 7:15 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
You put that so eloquently. :-) But, yes, he is. Someone should have informed Sam Bradford that his o-line was worthless.
by dimecoverage on Nov 5, 2009 8:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But then, can a QB get a read on the overall ability of their o-line in practice? Is it too late once they hit that first game… Obviously I haven’t played the game so I don’t know how practice works except for what I read. I would think the d-line doesn’t go full-on against their o-line in practice and they don’t go after the qb in any manner. Or am I incorrect? Coaches should be able to spot uselessness when they see it, but what about other players?
Just curious.
by dimecoverage on Nov 5, 2009 8:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
from what i remember from the summer reports, OU fans were clamouring how the oline was holding it’s own against the best dline in the nation, therefore, they’d be fine.
by Displaced Longhorn on Nov 5, 2009 8:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Stoops was singing some praises too of the O-line
It wasn’t just Wilson.
by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 5, 2009 12:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So you're telling me that Boise State's soft schedule isn't just cowardice or the blue turf?
You don’t say.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 5, 2009 7:35 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
It's completely BSU's fault!
I know someone on “that” thread said that BSU could simply go independent if it wanted to solve its SOS problem.
Yeah . . .
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 5, 2009 8:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it could help...
They are always going to be at disadvantage because they won’t ever give you the kind of TV potential that ND or even a service academy can bring, but at least as an Independent they would have more discretion in their scheduling that might allow them to get 6 BCS conference teams on their schedule or at the very least to get a couple of teams like Air Force, Southern Miss, or Houston that have a little more oomph than what the WAC currently offers. They are always going to be hampered by their location and the fact that teams like Texas and much of the SEC realize they don’t need tough OOC games to be in contention for the MNC, much less to get another home sell-out.
I am not saying it would be easy, but if they were an Independent they might actually earn some sympathy for any potential scheduling difficulties. As it stands it hard to feel sorry for them that they can’t find that one big marquee game when you know they have every intention of making the other 3 OOC games weak along with their horrible conference slate so they will always be in striking distance of qualifying for the non-BCS auto-bid.
by Rickyspub on Nov 5, 2009 9:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Its $$$$$....
Why give BSU a marquee game which with a win will guarantee them a BCS spot and take a potential slot from your conference? You are better off scheduling an Iowa or Cincinnati, who is more likely to win their conference and take only an auto-bid than to actually get an at-large bid with a less than perfect season. I am willing to bet BSU isn’t looking for a Big East opponent (and I’d bet the ACC isn’t getting any calls either)…the conference doesn’t have enough mustard to give BSU any credibility by having a Big East team as its marquee game for the season. It will be interesting to see if BSU does get a BCS opponent where that team comes from. I bet it will be either a really bad team looking for another potential home sell-out or it will be a middling or better team from the Big East or ACC.
by Rickyspub on Nov 5, 2009 8:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually . . .
I’d bet the ACC isn’t getting any calls either
. . . BSU is opening next season with a game against Virginia Tech at FedEx Field. Prime time on Labor Day.
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 5, 2009 8:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, the game is on October 2
Virginia Tech and ESPN wanted to move it to Labor Day, but Boise said no.
by Texas Wahoo on Nov 5, 2009 9:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You mean a newspaper was wrong? My world has been turned upside down!
Formerly kjm017
by Hopkins Horn on Nov 5, 2009 10:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But I thought they were looking for a 2011 matchup...
It wouldn’t surprise me to see them playing Clemson or NC State in 2011 if they can’t get any takers out West. VT probably won’t give them another game. Miami might but they seem more inclined to try and schedule a game with a BCS conference team and may already be filled for 2011. They are going to have a tough time getting marquee teams especially from conferences who have hopes of getting two BCS bids.
by Rickyspub on Nov 5, 2009 9:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Love the hoops coverage
And that photo of Barnes and Hook ’em is a classic.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
by Caradoc on Nov 5, 2009 8:25 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Texas BBall
ESPN has a nice feature on Avery Bradley. Jay Williams also thinks we’re National Championship bound (In$ider).
by jc25 on Nov 5, 2009 9:14 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Boise
Why don’t the best WAC and Mountain West teams just get together and create a new football conference. Utah, TCU, Fresno, BYU, Boise State and maybe Hawaii, Colorado State and Air Force. Those eight are definitely better than the Big East.
by atxdman on Nov 5, 2009 9:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
The Mountain West used to be part of the WAC
They left to form their own conference.
by Texas Wahoo on Nov 5, 2009 9:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
it’s probably alot of time, effort, and money to break down conferences and reform them with the “top teams” every 5 years so you have one decent conference formed out of two failure conferences.
by Displaced Longhorn on Nov 5, 2009 9:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
After BSU backed out of a game against us
I doubt DeLoss and Mack are willing to give them a game. especially since we already have ucla scheduled and Mack has said one “tough” ooc opponent is enough.
3/19/2009 - Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.
by burrito on Nov 5, 2009 10:03 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Beat me to it
I was scratching my head trying to think of when BSU ever backed out of anything, at least since the Hawkins era began.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 5, 2009 10:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When Boise can't get anyone to schedule them
It’s time to move up in the world and accept the risk like everyone else. Right now Boise is pretty much guaranteed a 1 or 2 game season: Beat your token BCS opponents, then steamroll your crappy conference and watch yourself glide up the rankings. The turnaround of that is that it’s almost completely worthless for a BCS team to be one of those 2 games. Think about it: If we schedule Boise as their token BCS opponent, even if they go undefeated against crappy teams after we beat them, the computers still won’t think they’re that great, and neither will the humans. It will be a quality win, but it doesn’t carry the value that playing a BCS opponent who has a good year will. Meanwhile, if Boise beats us, they’re NC contenders and have a series of easy games between them and the BCS.
Boise likes being in that crappy conference, because, well… wouldn’t you? They get to cream easy opponents all year and rack up wins so that they can say things like “only Boise and Texas have won X games since 2000” or whatever. They get to schedule one tough game a year and work all offseason on that one game (Oregon this year). Then, when no one wants to accept their offer to put your season at risk for little to no potential gain, they can cry BCS conspiracy and say that it’s not their fault that they have a bad schedule, because no one will play them. It’s almost the perfect situation, and they’re working on getting the media to get everyone on the “Boise deserves a shot” bandwagon, which may eventually get them a slot in the NC game. If they want to be anything more than a lovable sideshow to the college football season, they need to find a way to join a BCS conference. The catch is, I doubt that they’ll do that, because they’re in freaking Idaho and will never be able to keep up with the big boys in recruiting.
That said, if we open up a small playoff, then this point is moot and they’ll get plenty of shots to beat 2 or three top 10 BCS schools in a row to win it all. Whether they’re gaming the system to get into that tournament is a different story, but they’ll certainly be deserving champs if they win a tournament like that at the end of the year.
by Horn Brain on Nov 5, 2009 10:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Move up in the world?
Are you suggesting that they join the Pac 10? Because I don’t doubt for a second that they would if they could.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that the reason BSU’s not in a BCS conference is that the school itself has chosen not to be, rather than that BCS conferences will not invite such a small school with a smallish market, unspectacular academics, a limited budget, and not much success in sports other than football.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 5, 2009 10:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Especially when even the football success is actually measured in one-game seasons...nt
by Rickyspub on Nov 5, 2009 11:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, their 'success' in football has been based on single victories over a couple of seasons...
I think 2006 is the only season where they beat more than one quality team. They beat Oregon State, who finished 10-4 and OU. (They did beat Utah that year, but they were a mediocre 7-5.) Every other year they have either beaten no one of note (generally they have lost to their BCS conference or bowl game opponent) or they have that one victory over a BCS team that makes everyone think they are legit. I think the two victories over Oregon and bowl win over OU are the only times they have beaten a ranked team since ’02. (TCU may have been ranked when they beat them in a bowl back in ’03.) They have beaten as many ranked opponents in 8 years as we generally beat in a single season.
by Rickyspub on Nov 5, 2009 1:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They play a full season
Just not a full season of top teams. No team does.
And it looks like your post actually reinforces the position that teams can have these so-called one-game seasons and still win the bowl game that they supposedly do not deserve.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 5, 2009 1:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
One game seasons for bowl participants as well...
While I enjoyed watching OU lose in ‘06, I also thought they really looked disinterested until the end. They came out looking like they didn’t want to be there and were quickly down 2 TDs. OU stormed back to tie it in the 4th quarter and I have a feeling if OU were playing for a chance to face another team the next week, they would have played like that in the first half and would have romped.
Boise State is 3-4 in bowl games over the past 7 years. Their only other really great win was over TCU in 2003. They also beat a 7-6 Iowa State back in ’02. They have played all their losses close, but then as I noted they are a team that is adept at preparing for one game.
by Rickyspub on Nov 5, 2009 2:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
In bowl season, EVERY team is preparing for one game
Don’t take that as an argument for a playoff so much as a dismissal of the excuse of disinterest. If teams go into it disinterested, that’s their fault, and should never be held against the team that is interested.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 5, 2009 4:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, but motivation matters....
Is Washington really a better team than USC? No. They may have won that game but it is evident that they aren’t that good of a team this year. They caught USC with their pants down.
OU might not beat Boise State even once out of 10 games under the circumstances of 2006. If they came in feeling like they were wronged by getting stuck playing a non-traditional team they probably never get up for the game unless there was some additional reward for winning it. Yes, its more of an indictment of OU or any team that can’t get up to play the game, but it also doesn’t mean that the victor should be showered with undeserved laurels for beating a team that came in unmotivated. Boise State continues to reap rewards off of a win that came not only 3 years ago, but also against a team that didn’t really want to be on the field with them.
Bowl games have different meanings for different teams. How many Holiday bowls have we been in that we came out looking like we didn’t want to be there. It made for some exciting games once we decided we didn’t want to be embarrassed (or we just went ahead a let ourselves be embarrassed, like against Wash St.) but when you are playing out the string with no future rewards attached to the game, it isn’t always easy for every team to prepare the same or to give the same level of effort. It is why I think a playoff would improve the quality of play in the postseason. Teams playing to play again or for a championship are likely to come in equally motivated and prepared. Bowl games just don’t guarantee that level of commitment from both parties.
by Rickyspub on Nov 6, 2009 8:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Tech in the Cotton Bowl
I remember thinking this with Tech this past year in the Cotton Bowl vs. Ole Miss. They looked hungover.
by Infield Elephant on Nov 6, 2009 9:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Or Tech a few years ago against Cal
When the shoe was on the other foot. However, that’s still not a reason not to give full credit to the winning team.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 6, 2009 2:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Cal might still be whining about our taking 'their' spot in the '04 Rose Bowl...
But Cal isn’t riding the tops of the polls based on last year’s bowl game and they certainly won’t get any credit for it next year. BSU is still able to use that Fiesta Bowl victory as part of their resume for a lot of voters this year.
I’ll agree that too many traditional powers get favored positions in the polls each year, but its usually because they have consistently won against a lot of top notch competition year after year, not because they won in OT in bowl game 3 years ago and then upset a team on the road breaking in a new coaching staff to start a season, but has played no one of note since.
I am all for giving full credit to the winning team, but BSU is getting extra credit for doing less work.
by Rickyspub on Nov 6, 2009 3:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
They're not getting extra credit at all
That’s the complaint. They’re ranked behind Oregon, the team they beat very convincingly, despite being undefeated.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 6, 2009 3:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Also
You’re faulting them for games they can’t get. That’s beyond unfair. It’s easy for you to say that they should join a real conference or schedule tougher opponents, but if either of those is your argument, then read the linked story.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 5, 2009 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
But then how is it fair to some 10-2 major conference team that they don't get a BCS bowl game?
The problem with your argument is not that no team plays a schedule full of top teams, its that BSU doesn’t play even mediocre teams and yet they get a higher reward for that than a team that faces quality competition most weeks of the year but loses two or even three. Someone can say that Baylor sucks and while that may be true Baylor is a better team than all but maybe 2 or 3 on BSU’s schedule. Baylor represents one of the weakest opponents on a Big 12 team’s schedule, they would represent one of the top teams on BSU’s schedule. BSU doesn’t have an equivalent to Missouri, OSU, Tech, Kansas, or A&M on their schedule. In any given year these teams individually might not be that good, but as a collection they are better than all but 3 of 4 of the total teams that BSU has faced in the past 5 years. And that is only part our conference schedule this year alone.
It is much easier to prepare for one tough game in a 12 game schedule and then merely keep motivated to win against mostly sub-par competition. Its another thing to have to prepare for 8 tough games (compared to BSU’s schedule Colorado and Baylor are tough games) much less keeping motivated trying to operate at such a high level week-in-week-out.
You are again nibbling around the edges of an argument that looks like BSU deserves to play in the BCS because no good teams will play them. I am not faulting them for anything. I am faulting the system that buys into their resume and rewards them for winning one game while teams like Iowa get dinged for eeking out a win against Indiana. They do this while ignoring the fact that Indiana is better than all but maybe two or three teams on Boise State’s schedule. If Iowa loses to Ohio State they will get left out of the BCS, while BSU could skate into a spot if TCU loses. Iowa will have played a murder’s row compared to what BSU played, but the voters will ignore the effort because BSU won one game.
by Rickyspub on Nov 5, 2009 2:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I can see some of your line of reasoning, but honestly, the argument for rewarding a program for losing games isn’t all that sensible either. Why reward losing over winning?
As for the fairness to the teams that do lose those games, this system is already stacked against teams like BSU and Utah. The system is always unfair to someone, but the fact is that it would be ideal if the system would not always work against the have-nots. If there’s a series of unfair things that can’t really be made fair, why not split up the unfairness so that some of it works in each side’s favor, if possible?
by burntorangehorn on Nov 5, 2009 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we should reward teams more taking risks...
The problem we have now is that being perfect is more important than any other consideration almost to the point of ignoring even all the teams you played in getting there. If we want to see better interconference games we need to increase the reward for teams risking their season by playing tough teams outside of their conference slate.
People knock Texas because we have discovered a formula for success that involves keeping September relatively safe but many of them seem oblivious to the fact that we play in one of the two toughest conferences in the country. People seem to want to elevate Boise State for having one tough game on their schedule while ignoring the fact that they play in one of the weakest conferences in the country. I find it frustrating that teams that lay it on the line every week against .500 teams that actually have a shot at beating them get knocked if they don’t win ‘pretty’, while a team like Boise State, that spends almost all its season facing teams that would likely be winless in any major conference, continues to get plaudits for a game they played two months ago.
To me it isn’t unfair to Boise State or Utah or TCU, they are what they are and they have already been downsized out of the main picture over the years. The system should be changed so that they aren’t even a part of the picture. It is obvious that there isn’t enough talent in the country to supply 119 teams at the top level. If we want to keep 119 teams then lets quickly get a playoff in place. Give the TCUs, Utahs, and BSUs a place at the table. If they can consistently win in a playoff environment then they will keep their place if they lose year-after-year then maybe they shouldn’t get a spot at the table over more deserving teams that have blemishes from playing tougher opponents.
by Rickyspub on Nov 6, 2009 9:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not going to read the entire response
Because I already know what’s to be said:
Rewards and punishments should be distributed according to what is both deserved and under a team’s control. If scheduling is not within Boise State’s control, then don’t punish them. UT has more control over its schedule, and chooses to play cupcakes when they could have been scheduling teams like UCLA and Cal for years now instead of for 2010 and beyond. That’s called making a conscious decision not to take a risk. Boise State doesn’t do that. They consciously attempt to take risks, and are only afforded a few, like the Oregon game. Yet you want to unfairly penalize them.
If you want to move all the non-BCS schools down to another division, fine, but then the same standard about FCS wins should apply when BCS conference teams (including Texas) play those newly-FCS teams like Rice, TCU, BYU, etc.
by burntorangehorn on Nov 6, 2009 2:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So then what is deserved for BSU?
They have one of the weakest schedules in all of FBS. (They are always in the 80s in all the SOS metrics I have seen.) They have one victory over a team that is now 7-1 in a BCS conference.
I think that victory proves they deserve a spot in the Top 25. (I still say the Oregon team they faced wasn’t playing like a Top 25 team when they played, but I’ll give them enough reward to say it makes them worthy of a ranking.) But they have one piece of evidence in their favor. I can find dozens of teams that have played 7 tougher games than they have. The problem is how do I reward those teams for having taken a much greater risk for having played so many tougher games than BSU? I think a lot of the one-loss teams (including Oregon) have more on their resumes and deserve a place ahead of them. I think all the undefeated teams have as well.
You seem to want punish everyone else just to reward Boise State. Why should Texas be worthy of punishment because it chooses to play 4 cupcakes rather than 3 because they know they will play 8 tough conference games? Boise State generally only wants one or two tough games and then schedules cupcakes to go along with its creampuff conference sched. Boise State isn’t complaining about scheduling for next year. So they must have 4 tough OOC games on the docket, right? No, they have Toledo and Wyoming to go along with VT and Oregon State. Why aren’t they complaining that they can’t get another two BCS games on the schedule? In 2011 they already have Tulsa, Toledo, Utah and Wyoming signed up, but now they are complaining that they can’t get a BCS team. They are in PR mode, trying to make themselves the victims, when what they really want to do is dupe people into voting them higher for playing a weak schedule year after year.
by Rickyspub on Nov 6, 2009 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not punishing anyone
I’ve never advocated putting an undefeated Boise State ahead of a bunch of other undefeated teams with better schedules. I am, however, saying to put them ahead of the not-undefeated team that they themselves defeated soundly.
That’s not only fair, it’s sound. Or doesn’t head-to-head matter?
by burntorangehorn on Nov 6, 2009 3:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Benching Reesing was a mistake, I think
I understand Mangino was irritated by the incredibly stupid fumble, but it’s not like they had no chance to win. He practically gave up on the game just to make a point, which was dumb.
by TheElusiveShadow on Nov 5, 2009 12:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

by 




























