Louisville Beats West Virginia

by Peter Bean on Nov 3, 2006 12:32 AM CST in Texas Longhorns Football

Texas has its own business to take care of, but let's kick off Friday with some discussion of what we saw transpire in the first of the rest of this season's Defining Games. First, some game thoughts, then a brief review of what it means for Texas.

West Virginia - Louisville Game Thoughts

*It's time we recognize how difficult it is to dominate a game defensively these days. We see it, in some fashion, in the SEC, but that's also a product of some inept offense. When good offenses take the field, it's just tough to slow things down on defense.

Texas fans should know this well by now. The 2005 national champions were a fantastic defensive team, but it took everything we had to limit USC to 38 points. And they threw the kitchen sink at Texas to limit us to 41.

The point I want to make is that it's become increasingly difficult to totally shut down an advanced college offense with collegiate defenders. Too many little mistakes turn into gigantic plays. And we definitely saw that tonight. Not only were both defenses nowhere near controlling the game; they were practically hopeless. If West Virginia hadn't turned the ball over like they did, we would have enjoyed a 48-46 thriller. Neither defense had any prayer of stopping the opposing offense.

*The next, related, point is that I was very underwhelmed by both team's defenses. And while my notion that it's increasingly difficult to dominate a game defensively may be true, both Louisville's and West Virginia's defenses were uninspiring. And it's important that we not misunderstand the consequence of the above point. It's not that defense doesn't matter; it's that great collegiate defenses can't dominate great collegiate offenses in the way we often think they can.

For the night, I came away impressed with both teams' offenses, and neither team's defense.

*Super huge kudos go to Louisville for staying aggressive in the second half. There were multiple opportunities for the Cardinals to retreat to a shell and "milk the clock" too early. To Bobby Petrino's credit, he kept attacking, and it paid great dividends. This ought to be a lesson for others, of course. Texas nearly got burned by playing things a little too conservatively with a lead in Lincoln, Nebraska. Part of that was the weather, but I think part of it was also a missed opportunity to go for the kill when it was there.

Anyway, Petrino's Cardinals deserve credit for staying aggressive, even with a lead. That's what good football teams do.

*Speaking of the Louisville offense, it sure was a good night for Brohm to reassert his competency. Again, I credit the Cardinals' coaching staff for getting this team ready to aggressively attack a decidedly mediocre Mountaineer defense from start to finish.

What It Means For Texas

I won't go too far into this analysis, as Texas' most important mission is to beat the living snot out of the rest of their opponents. Still, we all care about how this loss affects Texas' title defense chances, and this was the result we wanted.

West Virginia officially drops out of the BCS Title Game hunt (and can't re-enter the discussion). Louisville moves up, but, really, since one team had to win, Texas fans should be glad it was the Cardinals. They'll now have to beat Rutgers on the road, as well as a solid Pittsburgh team. Louisville's plenty capable of winning out, but they're also in a better position to lose than, say, West Virginia. Tonight's result was, at the end of the day, a good thing for Texas. If nothing else, they'll increase their standing in the human polls (which carries a lot of weight),

I'll leave it at that for now, but jump in the discussion in the comments section below. Share your own thoughts on the big game in Louisville. Share your anxieties about Texas' standing in the various rankings. Are you glad Louisville won? Disappinted? Neutral?

Consider this your chance to jump in.

--PB--

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

My thoughts

I'm glad Louisville won. Of the two teams, I definetly felt West Virginia was the most over-rated, coasting on the afterglow of their surprising win over Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. Once Slaton was neutralized, they were out of the game.
Louisville is ahead of Texas in the BCS standings, and will stay ahead. West Virginia will now drop below us, so Texas will be no worse than 6th, probably 5th, as long as we take care of OSU with a solid victory.
However, I think Louisville may now jump Texas in the human polls, leaving us at #4.
Louisville will have no problem with Rutgers. If you think West Virginia's D was bad, just wait till you get a look at the Scarlet Knights. So our hopes for an upset must rest with Dave Wannstedt and Pitt.
I've mentioned my expectations for this season in a diary thread. They've definetly gotten an upgrade, from going to a decent bowl (please, anything but the Cotton) to going to the Fiesta. I won't be disappointed if Texas meets those expectations, as it's likely we'll end the season at #2 with a win there. That doesn't stop me from enjoying the "what-ifs" in terms of our MNC defense. So I'm now officially a Panther fan.

by patienthornsfan on Nov 3, 2006 5:37 AM CST reply actions

Conference championship game

First and foremost the 'Horns need to take care of business in a big way! Nailbiters with OSU or KSU could prove costly to us in the human polls. We also should face at least one more top-25 team, possibly two, with the A&M game and the conference championship. Given that the Big East does not have a conference championship game like the Big XII, the 'Horns should be able to move into the #2 slot if they win out. Does Mack again make the argument that it is not a level playing field for one school to have to play a conference championship while another does not. I think in the end, the strength of the Big XII, despite some poor records, versus the general weakness of the Big East will prevail. A Louisville loss somewhere along the way would also be most helpful. Regardless, Texas will be in a BCS bowl for the 3rd straight year if we win out - and that's not bad!

Hook 'Em!

by Screw O.U. on Nov 3, 2006 6:20 AM CST reply actions

My Thoughts

First of all, in regards to what we can take away from the game last night, I agree that neither team is worth a squat on defense. That game affirms by lack of belief in the 3-3-5 defensive scheme. That defense is often described as a "bend but don't break" defense but last night for WVU it was "bend to the breaking point". Give credit to Louisville and Brohm for making the plays; however, take all of that with a grain of salt. Those receivers were open by several yards on most plays and it was due to poor zone coverage and over-aggressive linebackers on the play action. Bottom line, WVU's defense was exposed last night as a fraud!

At the same time, Louisville showed me very little on defense as well. It was expected that WVU would put up big numbers in the running game, but they put up even bigger numbers than I thought. Though it was easy to see that WVU has the best ground threat in the country, LU barely put up any whimpper of a defense. In addition, their pass defense was weak as well, giving up over 200 yards passing to White, and allowing WVU receivers and backs (especially Slayton) to catch the ball in stride in space. Unacceptable from a potential MNC game participant.

Bottom line, LU will move up to number 3 in the BCS and probably will leapfrog Texas in the Human Polls off this big nationally televised game. However, I came away fairly unimpressed. Also, don't be surprised next Thursday if the wheels come off the national championship LU Cardinal bandwagon. Playing a second gigantic nationally televised game with BCS implications in the span of a week, this time on the road, against a very sound Rutgers team, will prove to be too much for this team that is not accustomed to this kind of publicity/scrutiny/limelight. I am predicting a Rutgers upset at home next Thursday night.

by skolodn on Nov 3, 2006 8:20 AM CST reply actions

I think you guys are all wrong...

I think it would've benefitted Texas more to have the better team (Louisville) lose. Louisville is good and is only getting better with Brohm coming back strong.

Both teams have to play Pitt and Rutgers, so wouldn't you want the better team to lose yesterday's game, and leave a succeptible West Virginia with its young offense to face the pressure of trying to win out?

The point I'm making is that if Texas wins out, I'd rather want West Virginia to face the pressure of winning out rather than Louisville. But of course, this all becomes moot if Texas or Louisville loses another game.

by trot on Nov 3, 2006 9:00 AM CST reply actions

Depends

I thought they were pretty much evenly matched. Explosive offenses, shaky defenses. The difference in the games was turnovers and maybe playing at home. That's how it goes in these things.

I feel like Louisville's got a better chance to stumble on the road at Rutgers or against Pittsburgh than I do WVA at home against Rutgers.

by Peter Bean on Nov 3, 2006 9:34 AM CST up reply actions

Scarlet Knights

You guys should join me in becoming big bandwagon Rutgers fans, for next week at least. A win by the Scarlet Knights eliminates Louisville, and I don't think Rutgers has much of a chance of winning in Morgantown on December 2 with a BCS bid on the line, though I'm not sure how the Big East BCS bid would be decided in a three way tie with those teams all having gone 1-1 against each other. For now though, Go Scarlet Knights!

by tk on Nov 3, 2006 9:57 AM CST up reply actions

Did Brian Leonard die?

Or did Ray Rice just steal is essence? He used to be the great white hope, now he's just a poor man's Mike Alstott? Anyway, not so fast my friends....

Ohio State drops one at Indiana, then rebounds to throttle Michigan by 20, setting up the national championship game we all predicted: Rutgers 34, Texas 13!! A redshit freshman can't win a national championship game, you need a savvy vet like Mike "Vick" Teel, baby!

by detr0 on Nov 3, 2006 12:36 PM CST up reply actions

Is this what New Jersey pride looks like?

I've always wondered.

by Peter Bean on Nov 3, 2006 12:45 PM CST up reply actions

Hoosiers

Ohio State already played at beat Indiana earlier this season, 44-3. Michigan goes to Indiana this weeeknd.

So, I assuming you meant, Michigan drops one tomorrow and then beats OSU in Columbus thus eliminating both Big Ten teams from the ranks of the unbeaten.

--AW--

by awiggo on Nov 3, 2006 2:03 PM CST up reply actions

What I took away from this game is....

That this whole WVA and Louisville Big East BCS controversy is not going away anytime soon. Louisville is very, very young and returns their superstar Brohm. They have also proved that they can get it done without Michael Bush. The freshman RB didn't look all that bad either last night.

I haven't really looked into the rest of WVA's squad, but Slaton and White will both be back next year and probably their senior years (depending on how Slaton performs next year.) With or without a good team around them, those two guys will always give you a chance to run the table in the Big East.

I wish this was the last year that we had to deal with this cupcake conference crashing the BCS, but I have a feeling we are going to be hearing about these two teams for the next few years or more.

by SuperHorn on Nov 3, 2006 9:20 AM CST reply actions

Texas D game plan

PB,
Do you think that Texas seems to be playing for turnovers and big plays on D, rather than not take chances because the coaching staff sees the same trends that you do in the ability of defenses to dominate?

by Wells on Nov 3, 2006 9:50 AM CST reply actions

To an extent

I've been reading all of Mack Brown's press conference transcripts for about two years now, and though they're mostly filled with fluffy stuff, if you read enough of them, you can definitely pick up on themes and patterns.

One thing Mack said throughout last year was that we weren't forcing enough turnovers. He said it pretty much every week, even when we weren't blowing people out.

Another thing to remember is that Mack's done some comprehensive studying of how teams win games consistently. And when you look at it, the two factors that are most critical are line play and turnover differential. Mack has explicitly said as much, so it's not surprising that he talks obsessively about turnovers.

So, to answer your question, I think there's probably some truth to your suggestion. I'd guess that there's a heavy emphasis on turnovers.

But I'd hesitate to take it too far and apply it to scheme. Chizik, for example, doesn't like to play a high-risk scheme. He plays his base defense, emphasizes gap control and area management. I think where your suggestion is relevant is that the coaches probably heavily emphasize going for strips and picks; it could be a factor in some of the big plays our secondary gives up, but I'm just guessing.

I think there's a very fine line between being aggressive for turnovers and getting too far away from your assignments. Oklahoma, for example, has had some struggles recently because of over-pursuit of turnovers. Think back to Chares' 80 yard touchdown run in the '05 Shootout. The Sooners were just trying to strip. No one tackled him.

by Peter Bean on Nov 3, 2006 10:01 AM CST up reply actions

I was thinking more of the long passes

that we have give up.
At least 5 or 6 big plays were from our secondary trying for the strip or big hit instead of making the safe play or from our corners taking an angle on the ball that is more likely to get the turnover but prevents them from making the tackle if they miss the ball.

by Wells on Nov 3, 2006 10:06 AM CST up reply actions

Right

That's why I said it could have something to do with the big plays we've given up this year.

Don't know that it does, but it's one possible explanation.

by Peter Bean on Nov 3, 2006 10:09 AM CST up reply actions

Thoughts

Was it just me or did both Louisville and WVA run a lot of the same sideways plays we always bitch about Greg Davis calling? I think I saw both teams run a lot of WR screens. Which brings me to an interesting question. Are Petrino and Rodriguez really offensive geniuses (and could you then include Davis) or do they look like geniuses coaching against those porous defenses?

by billb on Nov 3, 2006 10:16 AM CST reply actions