That's it! Nobody really needs to run. Bloodly useless thing to do. Ball control? Who needs it! (Leach actually has a quote to that effect). Athletes on D? Nah, stick them all on O! Prepare the defense with a realistic practice offense? They might, but I sure as hell don't see how they can emulate a balanced offense. There's a direct correllation with the discretionary coaching choices Leach makes, and the lack of success of their defense. But regardless, that offense will get less and less effective as it's figured out. Good zones are eventually going to end it. There's a reason few teams run the run-n-shoot, despite the success of the old UH teams. I think it's already happening a bit (see MO and CO - good zones will get INT's against that team) People make that offense out to be a world beating contraption that's causing a team with limited talent to overachieve. Problem is, Tech actually does have pretty good players. They're not OU caliber, certainly - but they're good. And you know what Tech's record is? 7-3. About what it should be. And you know who they still have to play? That's right, Texas and OU. Personally, I don't think they have a prayer against OU. In Austin, they have very little chance - one exists, it's just not big. So, if they finish 7-5, is that really all that fabulous? It sounds a lot like a Spike Dykes record to me. But regardless of all that - if a gimmic offense works, that's fine with me. I always liked watching the Oilers of old - it was a lot more fun than the Cowboy championship teams. But I think the Oilers had more talent - and they didn't win in the end.
haven, ...uh...what's the gimmicky part of the offense? Is it just that they stuck all of their athletes on offense? (BTW, who was switched from D to O?)
don't worry. UT will blow it by losing to a&m. Playing in a BCS game is a pretty big thing, which probably means UT will find some way to lose at a&m.
Ok, we're going to have a debate about what's a gimic and what's not It's a gimic when an offense is premised upon novelty (or, at least, novelty has a higher impact than in a traditional offense). Imagine a hypothetical world where every team ran that style of offense. My guess is the scoring isn't as high as Tech's - and Tech's itself, wouldn't be. Tech throws a ****load of routes at you... and gambles that players who either aren't used to playing (back-ups of back-ups of DB's) or aren't used to covering that much (LB's, DE's). If everyone did this - those players would have sufficient experience. In Tech games, a good many of successful drives are based upon coverage mistakes that wouldn't happen to experienced players. That's a gimic. And the more it's used, the less it will work. Schemes will solve it. (another test of a gimic, imo) But it's really a matter of semantics. You're welcome, if you prefer, to simply call it an unbalanced offense. That works, too. And it's not even necessarily bad - I love the fun'n'gun (in college ). But even that's less unbalanced than Tech - I think they'll fail, but we'll see. Concerning the talent statements of Tech's offense/defense. Personally, I'm not all that sure. I follow Tech's recruiting/camps very, very loosely. I'm really just taking the word of a Tech graduate that I hang out with. He loves Leach (and it pisses him off when I call it a gimic offense)... but thinks the talent that Leach gives the O over the D is a tribute to the guy's ego as a former O-coordinator.
Well, apparently you're used to someone taking issue with the adjective. I've heard it called that before, but I've yet to hear a good reason why it's a gimmick. The 'if all teams played this offense' logic doesn't hold water w/ me. The claim could be made for any successful offense/defense. Tech's competitors also have lots of game tapes available to devise a stragey to defend it, and it seems the best is to have a successful running game or pick-off some passes. And FWIW, Symons throws a good ball and the receivers are pretty talented. Unbalanced I'll agree with.
Why? They're the only BCS team that Texas is a lock to beat... Would you rather play TCU in a BCS bowl and win, or another team (Michigan, USC, etc.) and lose?
Whatever happens, I hope that TCU is exposed as the fraud that it is. (No offense to any board Horned Frogs, but I just don't think that you guys belong within sniffing distance of the top 10)
Why? They're the only BCS team that Texas is a lock to beat... Would you rather play TCU in a BCS bowl and win, or another team (Michigan, USC, etc.) and lose? I'd rather have the latter. Far more fun to watch, which is the only point of a bowl game anyway. I wouldn't care if Texas went 5-5 every year if we were playing Michigan, USC, Florida, Florida State, etc all the time. Those are the games that make college football fun.
I'm a Tech fan but they have little shot versus UT. The defense has been playing pretty well lately, they won the game versus Colorado and shutdown the Baylor Bears. Those are babysteps but they face a real offense this week I hope they're ready but I doubt it. Vince Young should have a field day running the ball, UT will probaly put up atleast 40. UT's defense should get a few stops which all you need when you play Tech. I actually think Tech has a better shot versus OU at home than they do playing at Austin. But theyre both going to be L's. I hope im wrong though And oh Ya, UT will make a BCS bowl and rightfully so.
I wonder if teams KEEP losing at the top of the rankings. Is there any possible way UT could sneek in the national champ. game? They dont deserve it but i think it would be funny if they did sneek in.
I wonder if teams KEEP losing at the top of the rankings. Is there any possible way UT could sneek in the national champ. game? They dont deserve it but i think it would be funny if they did sneek in. Unlikely, but remotely possible. OSU, Michigan, LSU, USC, and possibly Georgia need to lose, and then Texas has to hope its at the top of the remaining 2-loss teams in the computers (this would only get us to #2 in the polls). The most realistic scenario: OSU loses to Purdue, then beats Michigan. LSU loses to Ole Miss Georgia loses in the SEC title game to Ole Miss USC loses to UCLA or Oregon State I think the first 4 are all possible, but the USC loss is the least likely. This also, of course, assumes UT wins its last two games. The victory-margin not being used in the computers hurts UT a lot too. UT would be #4 in Sagarin right now using victory margin; we are #11 in the BCSized version of Sagarin. This also helps OSU which has squeaked by some mediocre teams. Then, if everything played out perfectly, we'd get to get our ass kicked again by OU on January 4th.
The Aggies, their inferiority complex challenged alumni and their duplicitous traitor of a coach are going to the Karmic Justice Bowl. I think it's being held in Purgatory this year.
But it's a detailed, computerized formula that has them there, not some whim of the sportswriters. Does the BCS formula need more tweaking to make sure the TCUs of the world are kept out (while, of course, keeping the remaining Big East left after Miami, BC and Va Tech bolt in the BCS Bowl picture as the BCS will apparently do... even though several of those teams are the Conference USA opponents TCU is beating this season).
But it's a detailed, computerized formula that has them there, not some whim of the sportswriters. Does the BCS formula need more tweaking to make sure the TCUs of the world are kept out Put victory margin back in and it fixes the problem. TCU is #3 in the Sagarin ratings for the BCS. The "smart Sagarin" that considers victory margin has them 35. Similarly, Ohio State is #5 instead of #12. I don't see why they got rid of victory margin. A team that wins 77-0 is more impressive than one that wins 2-0.
