Less is More?
by LondonRaider on Jun 10, 2009 8:05 AM CDT
68 comments
I was just reflecting on yesterday's Diatribe in which Seth C comments on some guy named John Lopez and his absurd comments about why Texas A&M has performed so poorly in recent years.
To explore these claims, here are a few facts in a chart that looks at various factors in the Big 12 since 2000. (it's my first time to use a chart, so here goes nothing. Seth C, I could use some formatting help with this one please):
| Team | Winning % Since 2000 | Number of Coaches Since 2000 |
Current NFL Players |
| UT | 84% | 1 | 48 |
| OU | 84% | 1 | 40 |
| TTU | 66% | 1 | 12 |
| NU | 65% | 3 | 41 |
| KSU | 58% | 3 | 25 |
| MU | 56% | 2 | 16 |
| OSU | 53% | 3 | 18 |
| TAMU | 52% | 3 | 29 |
| CU | 49% | 2 | 27 |
| KU | 48% | 2 | 12 |
| ISU | 44% | 2 | 12 |
| BU | 29% | 3 | 12 |
A few fact-based observations:
- Since 2000, TAMU is the 7th ranked team in terms of winning percentage in the Big 12. Forget about state supremacy and all of that nonsense, TAMU has been firmly entrenched in the bottom half of the Big 12 since the beginning of the decade. Re-establishing mediocrity is a bigger priorty.
- To support Seth C's argument, TAMU has had three coaches since 2000. The league's top performers (UT, OU and TTU) unsurprisingly have benefited from consistency in their coaching ranks. Their athletic directors were able to find the right coach for their program and invest in their success. Nebraska is a bit of an exception and shows what happens how a poor decision by a University can impact the success of a program. Getting rid of Frank Solich was clearly a bad move. Bo Pelini seems to have the program back on the right track, but not before costing the program over half a decade of success. You can make the same argument for KSU and TAMU.
- Because of TAMU's built-in advantages, it will always be able to recruit strong talent. If we use the number of active NFL alums as an indicator (one which I have notably criticised in the past, but nevertheless is still an indicator), no team has done less with more talent in the Big 12 over past 9 years than TAMU. Recruiting talent is not an issue for TAMU, despite the program's long slide into nether regions of the Big 12. Finding the right coach and having the patience to stick with him has been TAMU's real achilles heal.
- Needless to say, in contrast to TAMU, no team has done more with less than our own Mike Leach (by a factor of 2.5 times).
Go Red Raiders!!
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Double-T Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Double-T Nation's writers or editors.
5 recs |
68 comments
Email
Print
Comments
london, you are a awesome at coming up with these stats, let me tell you.
by kayakyakr on Jun 10, 2009 8:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Great stats. I will be sure this information is distributed properly. Love it.
by Raider1992 on Jun 10, 2009 9:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Great stats, really interesting to analyze.
But to nitpick, it’s “heel,” anatomically.
After all is said and done, more is said than done.
by ayleein on Jun 10, 2009 12:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Great chart, London
This chart also shows that, no matter how poorly the “established” programs (re: A&M, Nebraska, Colorado, or KState) perform, or how many coaches they change out, the NFL will continue to draft and keep their players. This says that if a top player desires to play in the NFL more than he wants to win, just go to one of those four schools rather than Tech, because irregardless of his productivity or the team’s success, or lack thereof of either, the NFL will consider him anyways (re: McGee & Freeman). No question, when listing also the number of 4 & 5-star recruits signed by each team, your chart takes on an even more significant status. Seth, I think, had a list of such star-studded nature, so maybe he could combine the lists to see exactly what I am saying. Hopefully, I am right and not just imagining this. We have probably all beat this to death with the Graham Harrell snub by the NFL, but it still would be an interesting thing to see. Again, good job, LondonRaider, and thanks for the great effort.
TTpilk
by TTpilk645 on Jun 10, 2009 12:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
is this overall winning percentage?
I’d be interested to see what the numbers are if you take out non-BCS teams from the records.
by Beergut on Jun 10, 2009 5:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
do the numbers and report back by friday.
:-P
by kayakyakr on Jun 10, 2009 11:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
took a quick look
2000
New Mexico
Utah St
UNT
U-La-La
2001
New Mexico
UNT
SFA
2002
SMU
UNM
2003
SMU
UNM
2004
SMU
UNM L
TCU
2005
FIU
SHSU
Indiana St
2006
SMU
UTEP
TCU L
SE La
2007
SMU
UTEP
Rice
NW St
2008
East Wash
Nevada
SMU
UMass
Looks like 29 non-BCS opponents, and y’all had a record of 27-2 against those opponents.
Take those 29 games out of the equation, and you have a record of 49-37, or a winning percentage of 57%, which would put you at just above Missouri on the chart above. Over a third of Tech’s wins in the Leach era have been over non-BCS schools.
Also, the OP needs to explain to me who the hell K-State’s third head coach has been since 2000. Bill Snyder, Ron Prince, and ????
Also, I will argue all day that Nebraska made the right choice in firing Solich, b/c Nebraska wants to win national championships, and Solich wasn’t going to reach that goal. Their mistake was in hiring Steve Pederson as athletic director, and then letting him choose who was going to replace Solich. The Nebraska athletic department is still recovering from that mistake.
by Beergut on Jun 14, 2009 6:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you have to run the same numbers for the other teams you’re comparing. can’t just arbitrarily remove games for one team and not the others.
by kayakyakr on Jun 15, 2009 8:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
See new post : The Real Story About Strength of Schedule
I tried to work it into this thread, but I couldn’t get the table to work, so I set it up as a new post instead. Our friends at TAMU, are unfortunately going to be disappointed once again. . .
by LondonRaider on Jun 15, 2009 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So when you're re-calculating all of the numbers...
Please go ahead and include Notre Dame as a BCS team. Then we can all see how relevant all of this tiresome argument about how right you are is to the original point of this post.
by Houston Raider on Jun 17, 2009 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
For 12th man...
Hey there Agg, just to let you know it would probably hurt your team even more without those BCS team winning percentages in the equation considering Aggs beat Wyoming and UTEP in 2000; beat Wyoming and Mcneese St in 01; beat La-La and La Tech in 02; Beat Utah and Arky St in 03;in 04 Beat Wyoming, yet lost to Utah; beat SMU and Texas St in 05; Beat the Citadel, La La, and La Tech in 06; Beat La Monroe, Fresno St, and Montana St in 07; Lost to Arky St, yet beat UNM in 08. I didnt even put in the Independent teams into the equation…. but Notre Dame and Army are NOT BCS teams either.
So hey there Agg, how about think before you speak when making those type of comments. That is a total of 20 NON-BCS teams, 18 wins and 2 losses… so yeah that would hurt your teams winning percentage without those.
by txt3ch6uy on Jun 10, 2009 5:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
this makes no sense
Hey there Agg, just to let you know it would probably hurt your team even more without those BCS team winning percentages in the equation
You then go on to list many of the NON-BCS teams A&M has faced in non-conference play.
Hmmmm, maybe YOU should think before you post?
by Beergut on Jun 14, 2009 5:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should also point out
Notre Dame IS a BCS team. If they win 9 games, they are guaranteed a BCS spot.
Again, think before you post.
by Beergut on Jun 14, 2009 6:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Notre Dame is NOT a BCS team because they are not in a BCS conference.
Any FBS school can make a BCS spot if they win enough games – just like Utah or Boise State.
Introducing the new 2008 Big 12 Football Champions: OU, UT*, TT*, and MU*!
Now Introducing the new 2009 Big 12 Baseball Tournament Champions: UT, KSU*, BU*, and MU*!
by mystman995 on Jun 15, 2009 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Notre Dame was part of the original BCS agreement
and they are still included in the current BCS agreement
The original agreement had no provision for teams from non-BCS conferences making it into a BCS bowl, just as there wasn’t a 5th BCS bowl at that time.
Because Notre Dame has always been a member of the BCS agreement, they are a BCS team.
by Beergut on Jun 15, 2009 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we should be happy they suck and quit trying to help them get better. I actually, like the Pilkster, was able to gleen some great info vis-a-vis Tech’s success with your data, so thanks. Great post. Wish I had skillz like that to contribute, count me in for a rec.
by Plano Jeff on Jun 10, 2009 7:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
A&M fans/commentators/writers/students/alumni
What is the deal with most of them? Why can’t they just admit that we have, at least for now, passed them by in football? What is so hard about it? If I went to school there, I would be able to readily admit it, just as I am able to admit right now that we have not surpassed Mizzou in Big 12 successes, though we are close. It’s as if they are beyond any sort of reason at all. I mean seriously, a lack of an easy major is why your team sucks now? Do you hear yourself saying this shit? I don’t think you can make yourself look any worse than that, and any reasonable A&M fan should find that theory absolutely ridiculous, yet most of them think there is something to that outrageous statement. Simply unbelievable…..
by techtom4 on Jun 10, 2009 10:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
+1 for
Do you hear yourself saying this shit?
great post also
"56,000 screaming crazies in The Jones rockin' as it has never rocked before" - Terry Bowden
If you not having fun....then your not playing the game right.
by texastfan on Jun 11, 2009 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A&M
I am not sure about the rest of you Red Raider fans that post here, but I DO NOT go to other team blogs and post, because I care about TEXAS TECH, not any of them. What I might say about any other team, they don’t want to hear. Why? BECAUSE I DON’T CARE ABOUT THEM! After God, family and occupation (?) Texas Tech is most important to me. The only other college teams I care to follow are those put forth by Lubbock Christian University, because they are in Lubbock, my favorite city, by far. Texas Tech has for years placed teams on the floor or field that, according to the services that do the ratings, are less talented than UT, OU, A&M, MO and NEB, even with KAN, KS, COLO and Okie State, with ISU and BAYLOR following. BUT, if you look at the overall performances, Tech will undoubtedly rate above all except UT, OU and NEB. This means that Tech has the quality coaching in place to get the most out of their talent pool than ANY other BIG-12 school. As a matter of fact, that statement would rate them similarly nationwide. This is no better evident than in football and as stated earlier, I think we Raider fans can be very happy with the position Tech is in and the direction it is headed. Do we expect and/or want more? Yes. But so do the coaches and, most importantly, the players. So, you non-Raider fans, we really don’t care if you like or agree with us, we care about OUR team. Why don’t you go to your teams’ blogs and show them how much you care about them. Thank you.
TTpilk
by TTpilk645 on Jun 11, 2009 2:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
sad thing is, he's the site editor over there...beerbutt that is:)
Thank God for Seth!!
by TT4EVER on Jun 11, 2009 11:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
correction!,,,site manager…even worse:)
by TT4EVER on Jun 12, 2009 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmmmm
but I DO NOT go to other team blogs and post
You are a member of Clone Chronicles and Bring On The Cats, both of which you have commented on. You want to revise that statement?
by Beergut on Jun 14, 2009 6:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps it could be
said that he doesn’t go onto other rival blogs to appear to know everything about everything and have an opinion about everything and criticizing a team blog for being optimistic about a season (it’s shocking that fans would do this). It’s amazing that you always have to be right, and just to clarify, TTpilk commented on Clone Chronicles re. David McWilliams and his bolting the Texas Tech program after a year for Texas and generally supporting the ISU fans to hang in there after Chizik did the same thing. And on Bring on the Cats he complimented TB for his post. How dare TTpilk be complimentary.
The biggest problem I have with you the way that you comment is that you’re the guy who has done and experienced everything and you don’t mind telling everyone about it, and on other team blogs, it’s generally not fun reading your comments because you tend to come off as a know-it-all. You may not see your comments that way, but for a majority of my readers, I can assure you that’s the general concensus.
I hate getting into discussions with you regarding most things and and most readers might notice, I try not to respond to your comments because engaging in a conversation with you is not fun or insightful for me personally. There’s no give and take or friendliness about your comments and for someone who blogs as a personal escape, constantly arguing for the sake of arguing is a no-win for me personally.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 14, 2009 7:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Checked out Beerbutt’s blog a few weeks ago and saw that they don’t even respond to him on his own site;) His coments are just the fruit of pounding their ass on the football field the past several years…lol…sour grapes personified;)
by TT4EVER on Jun 14, 2009 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
just out of curiousity
where have I criticized Tech fans for being optimistic about their team?
As for TTpilk’s comments, the “I never go to other blogs to read or comment, I only stay here” is a cop-out used by people who have nothing to contribute to the discussion. I responded the way I did b/c I find that comment disingenuous; its only purpose is to attack the poster, not the argument or to look at the topic of discussion. The fact that pilk’s posting habits contradict his claim was just icing on the cake.
As for joining in on discussions or arguments on blogs, do you intend for this to just be a place of constant cheerleading? Do you not want to discuss different topics, do you not want your views challenged? If you want a place of constant cheerleading and no disagreement, you don’t need a blog, just go to the athletic department website and read what they write.
by Beergut on Jun 14, 2009 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just go away.
I’d love to discuss, but I don’t think we need you to question us.
I consider myself to be intelligent enough to know when to question and when not to question. I’ve made it this far in life without your assistance, I don’t need it here. I do appreciate your advice on how to run the site, but I think I’m doing okay. Not everything has to be confrontational and your comments proved it again. You’re continually out to prove how right you are all of the time and it’s very tiresome.
Again, just go away.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 14, 2009 8:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I vote let him stay
It was about this time last year that Beergut started telling everyone at DTN how wrong we were about our team. It made for lively debate and discussion while the summer dragged on. It’s just my opinion but I say let him stick around. He fairly respectable and rarely gets out of line.
by Campeador on Jun 14, 2009 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I think he should stay too. I know hardly anyone ever agrees with him, but that’s the greatness of College Football! Beergut actually has good, insightful things to say sometimes, even about Tech, and I can’t recall a time where he was over-the-top rude or disrespectful.
by techtom4 on Jun 15, 2009 1:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not trying to question you
nor am I telling you how to run your site (I think you do a terrific job and have no need of my help in that area, so why offer).
I honestly want to know where I’ve told Tech fans on here they shouldn’t be optimistic about their team.
I’m really not sure how to respond to your claim that I’m “out to prove how right I am all the time” b/c I think one of the purposes of blogs is discussion of topics. In that discussion, you are going to get arguments from time to time, and in those arguments, people on both sides are going to try to prove why they think they are right. I don’t see this as a bad thing, b/c I think you strengthen your views only when they are challenged.
by Beergut on Jun 15, 2009 4:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You just whip my ass
and it can be incredibly frustrating defending to some readers why you haven’t been banned (I’m not intending on doing this). I know that I’ve lost two readers because of some of your prior comments and it’s really tough explaining to these people why you’ve been kept around. It usually doesn’t go over too well. And these were good fans.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 15, 2009 5:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great!
Well written, factual, concise…
by Campeador on Jun 11, 2009 7:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Come on guys.
Let him come on in. I think it makes for great fun. Football is just a game. That’s why I like it so much. It gives me an opportunity to think about something that, in the long run, really doesn’t matter. Sometimes during football season, I have had to sit out in my driveway listening to the games in my pickup. The neighbors can probably hear me hollering at the radio when I get mad at our quarterback for an interception or for our defense when they allow a big play for a touchdown, or our kicker for missing an extra point. But when it gets right down to it, I don’t think I’ve missed any sleep over it, because ITS JUST A GAME. Probably the most enjoyable games I’ve seen at Jones were against the aggies, win or lose, (mainly win lately) the aggies are a hoot!
by Bornlaser on Jun 12, 2009 8:34 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yea, I did.
You are right. But, that don’t mean I gotta like ‘em. Right? Anyway, it is a h ’n holler whenever one of ’em pens something we can throw darts at, like the post above. And, as TT4EVER said, this particular Ag poster above just seems to be really obnoxious at times. Can’t let him get too carried away without beerguttal….ha..
TTpilk
by TTpilk645 on Jun 12, 2009 8:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now Longhorn fans, that's a different story.
I’m surrounded by these guys. If UT had had as many ups and downs as Texas Tech has had, most of them would not be fans.
by Bornlaser on Jun 12, 2009 8:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yo
I agree. I live in Austin and there are Longhorn grads in the family, and my daughter is, sniff, sniff, going there, as well. They not only are obnoxious, but arrogantly so. Even after they won the national title, all they could do was rag on about how bad a coach Mac B. is, even tho he can recruit like a madman. Personally, I can’t stand his whiney little a$$, no matter what.
TTpilk
by TTpilk645 on Jun 12, 2009 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just outstanding work, again
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 13, 2009 9:26 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Did anyone else notice TT4EVER's avatar is slightly misaligned at the top of the page?
by Campeador on Jun 13, 2009 5:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I checked it out and I’m not sure what you are seeing. But you got me to looking at my avatar, and I decided to change it to this pic I took Thursday night of a very nice sunset.
by TT4EVER on Jun 13, 2009 10:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe its my computer because it’s back to normal
by Campeador on Jun 14, 2009 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok, 12th man...
My bad on that post… was thinking way ahead of myself before typing. Meant to Say NON-BCS teams, but you know what I mean. As for Notre Dame….
(With this format, the champions of the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pacific-10 and Southeastern Conferences will continue to play annually in one of the BCS bowls through the post-season following the regular season. In addition, one conference champion from among Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt, and Western Athletic Conferences will automatically qualify to play in a BCS bowl if it is:
(1) ranked among the top 12 teams in the final BCS standings; or
(2) ranked among the top 16 teams in the final BCS standings and ranked higher than the champion of one of the conferences whose champion has an annual automatic berth in a BCS bowl.
Under the new BCS arrangement Notre Dame will be guaranteed one of the at-large slots in a BCS bowl if it is ranked No. 8 or better in the final BCS standings. It is also guaranteed annual payment for its participation in the BCS. In those seasons in which the Irish play in a BCS bowl game, the school will receive $4.5 million (an amount equivalent to that received by a conference that places a second team in a BCS bowl). In those seasons in which Notre Dame does not play in a BCS bowl game, it is projected to be paid $1.3 million for its participation in the BCS arrangement.)
http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_explained.html
This does not mean that ND IS a BCS team, it merely means the same if Utah, Navy, BYU, or Boise St was in their position. Go check it up 12th man, yes they schedule some of the toughest games year in year out, but that does not entitle them to being a BCS team. The BCS system sucks in leaving ND out of the BCS equation, yet “A special case is made for independent Notre Dame, which receives an automatic berth if it finishes in the top eight.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Championship_Series
Yes, I know its wikipedia, but looking at other reliable sources on the net, they say the same thing.
Not if they win 9 games like you posted, but if they are ranked in the top 8… yes top 8. That goes the same if Utah, Boise St, BYU, Navy, or even any other NON-BCS team was to rank in the top 8… so tell me, would they be a BCS team? Answer, NOPE
So how about you check up on facts before stating anything whatsoever.
BTW, how about go and check up on some of those other teams stats against NON-BCS teams. All these BIG 12 teams have scheduled NON-BCS teams on their schedule each and every season, so how about give it rest.
They are 2-7 (since 2000) against both UT and OU (4-14 total, for those of you Aggs that have difficulty in mathematics). Tell me though, how many teams out there have won more than 3 games against either one of these teams (other than one another)? Take those winning percentages out and Tech has a pretty good percentage…66% against teams other than OU or UT… 45-23 record. TT has consistently played good football against both these powerhouse football teams, (not all the time, but yes consistently). If Leach is unable to beat the Longhorns or Sooners, his team puts up a pretty good fight. But you know what… this is what i will do, i will go and check out each and everyone of these BIG 12 teams records against ONLY BCS Teams and attached it to a different Topic.
12th Man will that shut your trap up? Maybe not, but hey i dont mind it… Haha.
by txt3ch6uy on Jun 14, 2009 6:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
regarding Notre Dame
you do realize that you are quoting the most recent changes to the BCS formulas, correct?
The original requirement was for Notre Dame to have a 9 win season, and they would be included in the BCS.
The change to them needing a top 8 ranking (which does equate the with a champion of a non-BCS conference) is very recent, although following the link to wikipedia doesn’t say when that happened.
The 2006 Notre Dame team, the last one to go to a BCS bowl, was 10-2 and ranked #11 in the Ap, Coaches, and BCS poll when they faced LSU in the 2007 Sugar Bowl. Their loss to LSU dropped them to #17 in the final poll.
So, this “they have to be ranked in the top 8” requirement is fairly new, in that it came about in the last two years.
Since there is an agreement to place Notre Dame in one of the BCS bowls if they meet certain requirements, I believe this does make them a BCS team, despite their lack of presence in a BCS conference. However, this argument is really one over an opinion on semantics, which neither of us will win.
They are 2-7 (since 2000) against both UT and OU (4-14 total, for those of you Aggs that have difficulty in mathematics). Tell me though, how many teams out there have won more than 3 games against either one of these teams (other than one another)? Take those winning percentages out and Tech has a pretty good percentage…66% against teams other than OU or UT… 45-23 record.
Can we keep the personal attacks out of this discussion? It adds nothing to the discussion, and distracts from the topic. Considering Tech’s academic ranking with regard to A&M’s academic ranking, I’m not sure why any Tech fan or alumnus would make cracks about A&M’s academics anyway.
As for your comments about OU and texas, not really sure what point you’re trying to make here; you’re basically saying, “If you take away all the games against the two best teams we play in our division, we have a really good record.” I can also use past records against other opponents to make Tech look bad. Since 2000, Tech is 1-3 against Colorado, their one win coming against the 5-7 2003 squad. Their losses were to the 2002 team which finished 9-5, the 2006 team which finished 2-10, and the 2007 team which finished 6-7. To recap, your only win over Colorado was over a losing team, and your last two losses to Colorado have been to losing teams, one of which was arguably the worst team in the Big 12 that year (2006). The problem with picking and choosing certain games to try to prove your team is good is that the same can be done to ‘prove’ your program is bad; such is the nature of statistics.
by Beergut on Jun 15, 2009 4:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why are we using the BCS as a standard?
I hate the BCS. I think the BCS is a crime and a hoax. The BCS should be banned from college football. They should be scrubbed and hung out to dry. They’re a scam. They are the #1 barrier keeping college football from having a playoff. They are all about $$$$$$$$$$ and not about amateur sports. They are made up mainly of power hungry, money hungry, spoiled Bureaucrats who think the world owes them their loyalty. They are the epitome of an entitlement mentality. SO WHO CARES WHICH TEAMS WERE BCS SCHOOLS!
by Bornlaser on Jun 15, 2009 8:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beergut just got owned...
On a side note, why would he name himself Beergut? I think that says something about some of those Aggies.
by techfan5730 on Jun 14, 2009 10:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t have a problem with Beergut. I live in the greatest place on Earth, which happens to have Horns, Aggies, Frogs, etc. I will concede, that BG brings something to the table from time to time, and is generally harmless.
I just don’t ever want our great DTN to be like the “kiddie” site where they eat there own. I don’t know what brings each of you to DTN every day, but I suspect most of you are like me, and want to support Tech, hear all the latest hot breaking news, etc.. Most of the regular posters here are very good interacting with Aggies and Horns. I NEED DTN to be strong and classy. I can’t get what I get here anywhere else. So I would just hope DTN can be known for being the thinking man’s sporting blog. People who really know football (and those other sports) will come here for excellent analysis. Furthermore, because we are such a tight, and friendly community, people like me are not affraid to post a paragraph here and there supporting our "HSO"s (Hot Sports Opinions). This thread is a great illustration of my point. LondonRaider, not an author or editor, just a dude like the rest of us, can post insightful stats, give a HSO, and we all benefit as a community. Even a graphically, spreadsheet illiterate such as myself could try a hack at putting up some stats, and one of you technical guru’s would “fify.” I just learned that means fixed it for ya. Anyway, my 2 cents. Thanks Seth, London, Beergut. Thanks to all of you for giving me this forum. Thanks to all of you alumni from other schools for keeping our blog family friendly. “Our community is HEAVEN to us, please don’t drive like HELL through it.”
by Plano Jeff on Jun 15, 2009 11:18 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah,
I think I just need a vacation. Thanks for the nice words and I’ll do my best to keep this as high-minded as possible.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 16, 2009 7:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And you probably deserve one too.
Have a good one.
by Bornlaser on Jun 16, 2009 9:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
12th man...
Thought to let you know, your numbers are done. Check out the topic… BIG 12 W/L records since 2000. I also kept ND as a Non-BCS team in those categories against BIG 12 opponents (IE, against NU and TAMU in 2000 and 01). Army is an independent and considered a Non-BCS opponent, same applies for ND. If you want to turn the numbers around go on ahead, isnt going to improve much… but go on ahead.
WRECK EM TECH
by txt3ch6uy on Jun 15, 2009 7:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comparing Notre Dame and Army is pretty asinine
Army wasn’t included in the original BCS contract, Notre Dame was. To say they are the same b/c they are independents means yourare being either willfully obstinate, or you are just ignorant of college football history.
by Beergut on Jun 16, 2009 5:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
WTH???
dude, are you still stuck in the past or something? This is a new day and age compared to then. ND, Navy, Army, and Western Kentucky are Independents NOT BIG EAST, BIG 12, SEC, PAC-10, or ACC. They are in a different category NOW. Get out of the 1940’s, 50’s, 60’s, 70’s or whatever time frame you are stuck in.
Yes the BCS is a flawed system, but the AD’s and President’s of their institutions have agreed to continue using what is set. ND just like any other NON-BCS team has to show that they are “worthy” of a BCS game. Now lets bring this issue to rest.
On another note about having losing records to CU… this is still a young series. Them and Mizzou have had TT’s number, and congrats to them. Losing to CU in 02 is nothing to be ashamed of… they only had 1 Conference loss before heading to the BIG 12 CG. The 2nd loss came to the same team they had their 1 Conference loss to before the game… OU (hopefully you did not confuse easily).
As for the 06 and 07 games… dont have a thing to say on their behalf. The way the played in both of those games was ridiculous (to put it nicely). In 07, had the opportunity to take the game in the closing minutes, then a pathetic pass from Harrell fell into the hands of a CU defender. Defense played a very good job in that one… 4 turnovers in that game by the offense and they were still had the opportunity in turning that game around.
The BIG 12 is no easy conference to win in. Heck ask UT when they lost to TAMU and KSU in back to back seasons. Ask OU when they lost to not only Tech in 07 and to CU that same year (whom also beat TT). Ask UT when they lost to TT in 02 (whom got beaten by CU that same season). Ask OU when they got beat by OSU in Norman during the 01 season (Cowboys finished with only 2 conference wins that season). Ask UT when they got beat by CU in the BIG 12 CG in 01 (whom UT crushed 42-7 earlier that year).
Once again 12th man, the series with CU is still a young series…. that one can easily be turned around in 2010 and 2011 (same with Mizzou). UT is down 2-4 against KSU, since the inception of the BIG 12. These past 2 losses came against a 7-6, 4-4 conf. team in 2006 and a 5-7, 3-5 conf. team in 2007 (in Austin). Those types of losses are not supposed to happen to teams such as UT, but it does happen.
by txt3ch6uy on Jun 16, 2009 1:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
it has nothing to do with being stuck in the past
The BCS is a fairly new system, historically speaking, in that it began in 1998. We’re only talking 11 years here now, so your reference to the 1940s, 50s, 60s, etc, makes no sense.
Notre Dame qualifies as a BCS team b/c they have ALWAYS been included in the BCS. I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp.
The practice of allowing teams from non-BCS conferences to participate in the Bowl Championship Series is a much more recent phenomenon, beginning in 2007, I believe, when they designated a fifth BCS game to host a game involving a non-BCS team.
Notre Dame was participating in BCS games as far back as 2001 (they were slaughtered by Oregon State in the Fiesta Bowl), so to say Notre Dame is somehow a non-BCS team when the creation of the Bowl Championship Series specifically INCLUDED them is asinine.
I don’t know why people are going off on how the BCS is a flawed system; that is irrelevant to the discussion. Whether or not the BCS is a good system is not an issue I’ve discussed on here, so I’m not sure why people keep bringing it up.
As for your series with Colorado, I was just pointing out how it is idiotic to take certain games off your schedule, and then try to use the remaining results to say you have a good team. I can easily isolate games against one team on your schedule, and use it to show how y’all have a bad team, which is why I picked the Colorado series.
by Beergut on Jun 16, 2009 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
brick wall man.
PS: Notre Dame is not in a BCS conference, but a case can be made for them to be considered a BCS considering that they have special consideration in the BCS contract. The only argument against them being considered a BCS team is that they have a more stringent guideline than a team from a non-BCS conference who has to win their conference AND finish in the top 12 while Notre Dame must finish in the top 8. Achieving that higher ranking may show that Notre Dame is less included.
But as you point out before, this is a recent development. So if you want to argue that Notre Dame was a BCS team because they had special provision to get into the BCS with an easy mark of a 9 win season, then you can make that case much more easily than making the case that Notre Dame is a BCS team.
by kayakyakr on Jun 16, 2009 4:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would say was and currently is
no matter how stringent the current requirements are, Notre Dame has ALWAYS been included in the BCS, which is why they are a BCS team.
Saying they are not now b/c they have tougher requirements is nonsense. You could argue that the ACC would meet that same requirement, b/c it used to be easier to win the ACC and qualify for the BCS before they expanded, split their divisions, and added a conference championship game. Under your argument, all ACC teams are now no longer BCS teams.
by Beergut on Jun 16, 2009 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
12th man...
to stomp this… into the ground. Here is an article by ESPN… probably the most legitimate College Football source around. Read the article, then go to….
Indies & Non-BCS top 10 players of BCS era… ND’s Brady Quinn is at #6.
Indies & Non-BCS top 10 games of BCS era… USC 34, ND 31 comes in at #2; Navy 46, ND 44 (3OT) comes in at #4.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3406481
I had posted this on another topic… lets get passed this damit
by txt3ch6uy on Jun 16, 2009 8:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Bloggin'
When I visit other blogs, it is to shore up or obtain more information seen here. I am a member of a couple of other blogs only so I could make what I feel are quality statements, not demeaning ones. It serves me nor anyone else on other blogs for me to go there to be negative most, or all, the time. I enjoy a little banter, such as I have with a few of TTNation’s bloggers. It is fun. But, there has to be a cutoff somewhere when someone gets way out of hand.
I think most of the bloggers here keep withing the lines the majority of the time. If we do wander out, another blogger, or Seth himself, will set us straight. A place for us to go and vent a bit was never there for many years, at least not online. But it is opening up now. This site is one of the best. I can say that because I have visited other sites. I don’t make it a habit to go to other sites just to start something up because this is my team, not the others. I appreciate those backing me on this and hope we can all be contributers here for a long time. It sure makes the season a lot more fun. And as we like to say here…..WRECK ’EM!
TTpilk
by TTpilk645 on Jun 17, 2009 11:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Here, Here.
Did I spell that right?
by Bornlaser on Jun 18, 2009 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
