I Hate Blowout Losses
by Bornlaser on Jun 24, 2009 3:00 PM CDT
18 comments
They give me a sick feeling and make me want to give up on football completely until about the following Thursday. I think it will be a true breakthrough when the Red Raiders can go just one year without one. I wouldn’t be surprised if we couldn’t go all the way back to around 1977 without at least one.
I haven’t checked, but am almost sure some of the great storied programs (including some on this list) have had very few such losses.
The chart below shows the games we’ve lost by seventeen points or more (I thought of going with twenty or more). This is my arbitrary definition of a blowout. One or two other games almost made the list.
Anyway, a few observations:
- We have had at least one blowout loss (17 or more) each year
- We have more on the road.
- It seems to always be the same teams that rip us up.
- We don’t have as many as we used to. This may be a hopeful sign.
year | score | difference | team lost to | place
2001 42 – 7 35 UT Austin
30 – 13 17 Okla. Lubbock
2002 45 – 21 24 Ohio State Columbus
37 – 13 24 Colorado Boulder
60 – 15 45 Okla. Norman
2003 49 – 21 28 NC State Raleigh
62 – 31 31 Missouri Columbia
56 – 25 31 Okla. Lubbock
2004 51 – 21 30 UT Lubbock
2005 52 – 17 35 UT Austin
2006 38 – 21 17 Missouri Lubbock
30 – 6 24 Colorado Boulder
2007 41 – 10 31 Missouri Columbia
2008 21 – 65 44 Okla. Norman
Do you think this could be the year we can avoid getting clobbered by someone? What will we have to do to accomplish this?
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.
0 recs |
18 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I doubt this will be the year we avoid a blowout loss simply because we will have to play revenge-minded UT and Bradford-led OU. However, I think that this program is heading in a direction where blowout losses will not be as common. I think last year, we obviously had the talent to stay closer with OU than we did, we just had a lapse in mental toughness which snowballed into mental breakdowns. I think that the more success our teams have, the more confident and mentally tough the players will be which will translate to more consistency. There’s no doubt we have the talent, we just need more experience at being a Big 12 contender. It seems that as of late we beat Oklahoma OR Texas. In order for us to take the next step towards the top of the conference, we will need to be able to beat them both.
by Soverton on Jun 24, 2009 3:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Blown Out!
Of the 14 blow-outs, we scored over 30 (31) just once, against Mizou in Columbia, and 25 once in Lubbock against OU. All other blowouts, we scored 21 or less points. With the capability of this offense to score almost at will, this is a travesty. With all but 4 of the losses away, it means we have a great deal of trouble scoring as we are capable of doing when visiting. If Leach and co. do anything this year and afterwards, it should be to ensure there are no letdowns, first at home, then away. The last loss in Missouri, my brother was there. He said Tech came out flat and never got pumped throughout the game. I hope that never happens again. How can anyone not be excited at the prospect of defeating a good team on the road? I am ready for this year, but hopefully, no more blowouts.
TTpilk
by TTpilk645 on Jun 24, 2009 8:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
A lot of those games fall on the QB. Both recent Missouri games, for example, saw our QB throw multiple gimme touchdowns to the other team. Other games fall on the WR (Colorado?) or the playcalling.
Most of the games just fall on the defense, I think, though.
by kayakyakr on Jun 25, 2009 8:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the vast majority of the games you listed
the other team was just flat-out better than Tech.
Iy wasn’t a lack of mental focus, it wasn’t a lack of mental toughness, you were just simply out-talented across the board.
The exception would be the ’06 loss to Colorado.
by Beergut on Jun 25, 2009 3:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
’06 missouri
’03 NC State and Missouri
’02 Colorado
and the ’07 Missouri game we did not come out to play. I think we would have lost that game, but we did much more poorly than I expected.
by kayakyakr on Jun 25, 2009 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
those teams
’06 Missouri had Chase Daniel on it; they were better than you.
Didn’t ’03 NC State have Phillip Rivers on it?
2003 Missouri had Brad Smith on the team, they were better than you.
2002 Colorado won the Big 12 North Division and only loss in conference play was to Oklahoma. OU beat them in the conference championship game, too. Why do you think the ’02 Tech team was better?
by Beergut on Jun 26, 2009 4:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
‘06 missouri was a game given away by graham harrell with 2 pick-6’s on 2 drives in a row. Without those 14 points, we’re down 3. Not a blowout. ‘06 Missouri didn’t have Maclin and only gained 306 yards on a poor TTU defense. TTU gained 450 yards. But that’s what you get when you turn the ball over 5 times. Both teams finished 8-5, 4-4 on the season. Painful game, but TTU was not far outclassed as we were, say, against Ohio State or the ’05 Texas team.
’03 NC State did have Phillip Rivers. We had 600+ yards of offense but petered out around the end zone in that game. Both teams finished 8-5 on the year, winning their respective bowl games.
Same story with ‘03 Missouri. Brad Smith hurt us, we couldn’t stop a running quarterback (5 rushing TD’s, 3 from > 10 yards, 291 tot yards). Symons also threw 4 picks in that game. But they finished the season 8-5 (losing their bowl game).
‘02 Colorado, by measure of the final record, had the same 9-5 record we did. They did finish 7-1 in the Big XII back in the day when the Big XII North was ok, though, so I’ll give you that ’02 Colorado was significantly better than ’02 TTU.
by kayakyakr on Jun 26, 2009 8:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
You don’t have to drive as far on offense to score if the defense is grabbing turnovers, especially if the defense returns two for TDs. That means two more times the opposing offense will get the ball, and two more times your defense will have to get back on the field AGAIN. That also means two fewer times the offense get to move the ball, which can partly explain the discrepancy in yardage between the two teams.
Regardless, holding Tech to three TDs and forcing 5 turnovers in Lubbock is fantastic defense. The yards given up don’t matter when you consider that they only gave up three TDs in ’06. A defense which forces 5 turnovers and holds your offense to only three TDs is outclassing your offense.
As for ‘03 NC State, their defense simply kept y’all out of the endzone. You can say what you want about total offense, but those yds don’t add extra points on the scoreboard. Their defense stopped your offense. The final record of the two teams is irrelevant.
As for ‘03 Missouri, your defense couldn’t stop anyone that year, running or passing. This was the year y’all were #1 on offense and #117 on defense for a few games, correct? Missouri was flat-out better than you were, b/c they at least had a defense.
by Beergut on Jun 27, 2009 3:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
blah blah blah blah.
all that says to me is that you’re grasping at straws to try to keep the argument alive. Give it up, let it rest, stop rationalizing some imaginary ranking that you had in your head and notice that the results for these teams were identical despite the blowouts.
If your argument was that, “on that day, they were better”, then ok, sure, on that day, they were better, but you can make that case for any loss. But your argument was not day-specific, it was over-arching and you’ve lost that point.
I’m bored, though, so I’ll play along:
Let’s take an aggie blowout loss for example: 2005 ISU comes in to college station and destroys the aggies. They were a bowl team at a 7-5 final record, but let’s look at their wins: Illinois State, Iowa (decent win), Army, Oklahoma State (4-7), A&M (5-6), KSU (5-6), and Colorado (good win). They beat 2 bowl teams all year. They lost to Baylor, a 2-6 team, at home, and they dropped games to anyone else with a hint of a pulse.
So, ISU finished the season a weak 7-5. A&M finished the season 5-6. They got blown out at home. Was Iowa State flat-out better?
by kayakyakr on Jun 27, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
all that says to me is that you’re grasping at straws to try to keep the argument alive.
All your response says to me is that you struggle with discussing a topic with anyone who disagrees with you without attacking them.
The problem with looking at the final records of a season is that 1) you’re talking about different conferences in one case (NC State), and 2) how they finished ont he year has NOTHING to do with whether or not they were simply better than Tech.
The problem with using that ISU game as an example is you are talking about one game versus fourteen different games for Tech. You’re data same for A&M is too limited. However, to answer youre question, yes, Iowa State was simply better than we were that year. Our defense in ’05 was a pathetic sieve that played prevent all game long. Dennis Franchione had an incredible record of poor performances in his time in College Station, but that ’05 season might have taken the cake.
by Beergut on Jun 27, 2009 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ha, you accuse me of attacking you? shrug Suit yourself.
I have to disagree: the way they finished the year has everything to do with if they were “simply” better than Tech. If two teams in similar conferences (and the ACC that year was “OK”) end with similar records then the two teams are of similar quality. Then again, I believe that a team can be better on one day and not on another because of any number of factors. I take it you do not?
And I was trying to give A&M some credit, I thought they were decent enough in 2005, albeit very poorly coached. I don’t know what you thought I was trying to argue by mentioning the ISU blowout, but it didn’t require 14 other games for the point to be made.
bonus team troll: I apologize, A&M’s kinda hard to make an example of, A&M hasn’t been at that “middling” level very often during the period of time that ESPN.com’s got results for.
by kayakyakr on Jun 27, 2009 6:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ps: personally, I put turnovers on the offense except for interceptions of the spectacular level and fumbles caused by fantastic hits or other top-notch, nothing the offensive player could have done about it, defensive plays. To me, turnovers are the definition of a lack of mental focus (throwing to a dumb spot, forgetting to wrap the ball up, making bad pitches or fumbling snaps), or lack of mental toughness (dropping the ball when you’re about to get hit, pulling up off of a pass and letting it get intercepted, sailing a ball if a defender is in your face).
1 or 2 turnovers is an average game, it happens. 5 turnovers is the offense’s fault.
by kayakyakr on Jun 27, 2009 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
so
when a defense disguises their coverage well enough that a WR changes his route and a QB throws to the wrong spot, allowing the defense to make the interception, that isn’t the defense playing well?
by Beergut on Jun 27, 2009 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the quarterback throws the same, low, floating ball on the same designed out route two times in a row, the no, that isn’t the defense playing well.
by kayakyakr on Jun 27, 2009 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So there’s like 65 days until the first game???? Friday I’m going to Playa for a week. When I get back, it better be effing football season dammit. BTW, I hope the two of you keep going back and forth. I’m actually enjoying this debate. Seriously, you both make good arguments and back up your opinions.
I have to go with K on the mental focus thread though BG. If you can honestly say you’ve seen the same number of Tech games K and I have seen(esp. The GH era of 06-08) you’d get K’s point of especially GH loosing focus and throwing picks. GH was really snakebit on our last homegame againt Daniel. I knowMizzou wasn’t THAT much better than us, but maybe mentally, yes.
by Plano Jeff on Jun 29, 2009 9:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Blowout wins...
Sorry Ag, but a blowout loss isn’t simply the measure of the difference between teams. As a Tech fan, I have become accustomed to blowout wins, too, and don’t take them too seriously, either. Tech has recently blown out the Huskers, the Jayhawks, OSU, yet I percieve the difference between us and those teams as being much less. With highpowered offenses, gambling styles, weird breaks and officiating, and so forth, sometimes blowouts happen. And sometimes a team can just run out of gas or just have a down day. I don’t dwell on the losses or brag about the wins.
by elgrande on Jun 29, 2009 9:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
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.
