emmitt01

Brats. (that's as in bratwurst, not annoying kids)

The words "burn ban" were thrown around every Fall that I was in Talons...and only once, in God knows how long now, has bonfire not burned.

higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable Is Dickey still coaching here? Damnit, it didn't work!

Me, a nasty temper, and time to reload.

A couple of things. 1)Am I reading correctly that we have 1 rushing touchdown? 2)Didn't PC pass for a touchdown in the La Tech game?

Dated Lera all but the first year of college...now married. And they say college is the time to date lots of people.

Nope, I don't have a problem with hard numbers. That's all this thread began with. I just take issue with the "Team X is better because_____insert generalization about their prowess" statements.

And that's all I or anyone else has said. It's just that saying UT wouldn't be deserving if it all played out this way is like saying "Hey, let's run the dive again" around here.

Yes, Texas going into Columbus and winning is impressive. It just doesn't automatically vault them into the national title game given that the schedule they play and the schedule Va Tech and Bama would have to run through aren't equal. Why this makes me a Texas "hater" or somehow affixes to me the title of "almighty" I'm not sure. I would shout "hook em" from the rooftops if they lined up and played a schedule that was tougher than the other undefeated teams behind them. And you can call it "jealousy", you can call it "hatin", you can call it "bovine profiling" for all I care. I don't make up the rankings, I don't vote in any of the polls...and yet the numbers are still overwhelmingly on my side IF Va Tech and Alabama win out. How is this hard to comprehend?

Just to play devil's advocate here, how do we know every team in the Big XII isn't vastly overrated? Couldn't they all be inflating their statuses by beating up on eachother? What makes them all prima facie quality teams who are above reproach? Is it recent history or just familiarity with the Big XII that makes everyone in Big XII land assume that, if you come out on the top of the heap around here, that you must be of some merit? I think it says something that SC struggles against Pac-10 foes and then lays half a hundred on the champion of the Big XII last year. Why weren't the trojans exposed after playing that "garbage" Pac 10 schedule? You wanna look for a team being forced to come out into the daylight and show themselves for what they are? Just wait until the longhorns luck their way into the biggest butt whoopin of the season in Pasadena if they make it there.

You know Courtland, it's statements like this that actually respond to themselves. Either every sports writer in America vastly overrates USC, UCLA, Oregon, Cal, Arizona State (Uh Oh, that's more than three teams...that "weak Pac-10" argument is a sinking ship already) or maybe, just maybe, we've got another Big XII fan with a dream and desperate need for belonging on our hands. "Oh, how I wish I could be a part of a bandwagon with some sex appeal. I could wear my cow shirt everwhere and women would flock to me. I don't need tag body spray, I just need 12.99 every season for a new t-shirt." Oh, and you're telling me that the top 3 teams in the Big XII could run the table in the Pac 10? Texas might, but unfortunately for them they don't hand out Sears trophies for being better than most of the other teams in America. "This year's national champion, Texas, pulled off the astounding feat of being better than every team in the land...except the top team in every othe BCS conference...let's light up the big "1" on the clock tower boys!" And who after Texas would run the table from the Big XII again? Would it be the defenseless Red Raiders who Baylor almost exposed? Colorado who never knows which team will show up? How about the Sooners? Whoops, UCLA already pounded them this year. Uhhhhhh, Aggies maybe? Nope. Nebraska then? Nah, not good enough to beat Oklahoma...who UCLA already pounded. Where's your top 3 guy?

Did you not read the rankings for the teams USC plays or is this just another example of the "southern football bias?" Let's remember that the champion of that conference that is "about 1/2 notch above the sunbelt" drilled the champion of the mighty Big XII last season...as they would do the longhorns this year if they were to play.

Nope, no problem with my logic here. At the time Texas played them Ohio State was a top 5 team...and at the beginning of the season Oklahoma was in the top 5 as well, so we can throw preseason polls out the window. And it wasn't just UT that drug down OU's ranking, TCU did this as well as did UCLA. And you say Ohio State's loss to Texas brings them down as if this in any way is relevent. Don't you think FSU's loss brings them down a bit? Or how about Georgia's loss to Florida? By your reasoning a team could maintain the #1 spot in the country by playing the preseason top 4 as their non-conference schedule...regardless of whether those teams are exposed as being overrated as the season progresses. The only way to truly gauge a team's strength of schedule is where the teams they play end up when all is said and done. This takes into account not only their losses to higher ranked teams in their conference but also losses to the rest of their schedule. And no, Texas doesn't play more ranked teams. They play Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Ohio State. They play Colorado twice. That's 4. Va Tech plays FSU, Miami, Boston College, and West Virginia. That's 4. Alabama plays four as well. Because there are conference title games in each of these conferences the team they play for the conference title has to be taken into the equation. Justifying UT in the national title game IF all four of these teams stay undefeated is just an exercise in spin doctoring.

This woman is the kind of person that would lead me to go to church. http://www.kiddlive.com/ Scroll down the list of topics in the middle of the page until you come to "trading spouses video"

I think our ideas of fault do differ. All I'm saying is this. UT fans and "apologists" (I'm kidding) declare that this is the year that UT 'deserves' to go to the national title game. I think, if faced with several undefeated teams, you have to ask the question "who did you play?" You'll recall they used this exact logic to keep Utah out of the national title game last year. The reasoning behind Utah not playing for all of the marbles was that they didn't play the teams that SC, Auburn, or Oklahoma did. You can't decide who should play in the Rose Bowl based on talent because looking at the possible undefeateds there is talent galore on all of the rosters. Somebody, unfortunately, has to be left out in the cold in a scenario like this (Remember Auburn last year?) Other than going by the strength of who they played you are just allowing the writers to vote their opinions...and isn't that what everyone was trying to avoid when they came up with this BCS nonsense in the first place?

Hatred for UT has nothing to do with it. If you end up with four undefeateds then you should have to look at who had the toughest road to travel. It aint UT in any argument. And, yes, they should be blamed for the strength of the Big XII. If who you play doesn't make a difference then I don't want to see another knock on the Sun Belt when people whine about our record.

Just for the sake of argument here are the ranked teams on USC's schedule: UCLA (BCS #5, ranked #7) Oregon (BCS #13, ranked #15) Notre Dame (BCS #14, ranked #8) Cal (BCS #23, ranked #23) Fresno State (BCS #24, ranked #21) Average rank of opponents: BCS #15.8, ranked #14.8 So, in essence, Vince Young should only be taking snaps for the national title if/because TV producers think he'll bring in viewers or Mack Brown cries and begs for the media to "take control of college football" again.

Ok, I know this will stir the pot a little on this board but I just don't see how anyone in the world can justify Texas being in the national title game. Let's look at who they've played and will play compared to Alabama or Virginia Tech, along with each opponents BCS and national ranking. Texas ULL (unranked) Ohio State (BCS #10, ranked #12) Rice (unranked) Missouri (unranked) Oklahoma (BCS #25, ranked tied for #32) Colorado (BCS #22, ranked #24) Texas Tech (BCS #15, ranked #16) Oklahoma State (unranked) Baylor (unranked) Kansas (unranked) Texas A&M (unranked) Probable Big XII title opponent: Colorado (BCS #22, ranked #24) Average ranking of ranked opponents: BCS #18, ranked #21 Virginia Tech NC State (unranked) Duke (unranked) Ohio (unranked) Georgia Tech (unranked) W Virginia (BCS #17, ranked #18) Marshall (unranked) Maryland (unranked) Boston College (BCS #19, ranked #20) Miami (BCS #6, ranked #5) Virginia (unranked) North Carolina (unranked) Probable ACC title game opponent: Florida State (BCS #9, ranked #8) Average ranking of ranked opponents: BCS #12.75, ranked #12.75 Alabama MTSU (unranked) So Miss (unranked) South Carolina (unranked) Arkansas (unranked) Florida (BCS #16, ranked #15) Ole Miss (unranked) Tennessee (unranked) Utah State (unranked) Miss State (unranked) LSU (BCS #8, ranked #7) Auburn (BCS #20, ranked #17) Probable SEC title game opponent: Georgia (BCS #11, ranked #11) Average ranking of ranked opponents: BCS #13.75, ranked #12.5 So, that's four ranked teams played each when all is said and done with UT not playing near the schedule of the other two. So, again, how do you justify UT in the Rose Bowl?

I think the only statement that you needed in that whole post was "Let us be frank. As a football program we have not been at this level of success since Coach Fry's tenure." Obviously some of us are clinging to the glory days of the 90's when things like this would have never happened. Many of us think that if we just write the words "higher expectations" and "unacceptable" on a message board enough times that RV or the BOR will read it and say "yeah, let's fire the coach with more conference titles than any other in our history, more bowl trips than the rest combined, and who has brought national attention to the school like at no other time." Then they'll tell you how schools like Southern Miss or Boise State or Memphis would never accept the slow building process that is necessary at North Texas. They'll conveniently forget the advantages that these schools have ACROSS THE BOARD and will simply chant "50 points is a whole lot, cuz I can count that high" ad nauseum until you are beaten into submission and have to admit that, yes, you too don't like being beaten by a lot...as if this is a revelation and they're getting you to admit a deeply held secret. Here, I'll get us a new coach in no time flat: higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations higher expectations unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable There you have it. If you'll just drive down to Denton right now you'll find decades of neglect by past athletic directors and chancellors reversed. You'll find a new shiny stadium sitting at the intersection of two major highways. And you'll find that Pete Carroll has decided he just couldn't go another day without coaching in Denton. Wow! And some people don't believe in magic?

Of course not. It's become en vogue on this board to look at point differentials and pay no attention to what occurs on the field. Throwing around catchphrases like "lowered expectations" allows you to paint anyone who sees improvement or even a positive side of things as "apologists" or having "green tinted glasses." It amuses me in no small way that getting 56 hung on us by a team that many consider to have more talent than USC is "very sad." There is no logical way to spin this in a negative light. You have start with the assumption that this year's NT team is vastly talented and of quality to then grouse about the loss to LSU...but if you do you have to say this team doesn't really "stink." Or, you look at the fact that this team gave up 54 to Tulsa early in the year and then gave up only 4 points more than that to LSU, again only giving up 28 until into the 3rd quarter, and have to see that as improvement as the year progressed. I guess, though, your third option is to be a box score analyst and make asinine statements.

I 'd have to say that I would.

I wouldn't. The last thing I want attached to my school's football team is the "fluke win" moniker.

If the NCAA adopted your stance the only teams in bowls would be teams like Texas Tech who schedule patsies in out of conference...and a whole lot of bowls would be without participants.

Save the cliff jumping folks, this was just a matter of a better team beating a team that made some strides. Danny looked better. We made some drives that I didn't expect. DD grew a pair and went for it on 4th and 1 from the goal line. This game was not ugly from the get go. We got worn down. Save the negativity. Oh yeah, and screw UT.

Ok, I'll bite on everything you predict except on thing. I'll believe 25-28k when I see it.