God, you are just a flat out *******, do you know that? I wish a Texan would buy an nba team for OKC just so you would have an Oklahoma team to root for and you would stop bothering me on this board. I haven't said a ****ty thing about OU in months, but here you are again. I don't think I even commented on the OU/atm game. I'll pay you 100 bucks if Tech puts 50 on us.
Relax, gr8-1... I don't think he was suggesting that Tech would put up 50 on us, at least not the way I read it. Statistically, he's saying what a lot of people around the country are saying, and I don't totally fault him for it. But you have to actually watch the games consistently for both teams to realize that Tech scores more than UT because they have to, and keep playing aggressive in the second half. You also have to watch the games to realize that defending the run, not the pass, is the weakness of the UT defense. duke's not the first person I've seen this week to make those kinds of comments. I don't think he was trying to be an ass.
Maybe not. But you can't tell me "Texas only scored 40 on a bad defense" wasn't a dig at the team. I know he doesn't believe they'll score 50 . But, he meant it as something negative about Texas. He can't stand Texas and I think he takes unneccessary digs at the university. I will say that I think Tech's offense is more efficient and cohesive than UT's. They scored 45 on osu, we only scored 17. That being said, each game is a game within itself.
God, you are just a flat out *******, do you know that? I wish a Texan would buy an nba team for OKC just so you would have an Oklahoma team to root for and you would stop bothering me on this board. I'm not a fair-weather fan, unlike some people on this board. Maybe not. But you can't tell me "Texas only scored 40 on a bad defense" wasn't a dig at the team. Is it a fact or not? Would you rather me say 41? But, he meant it as something negative about Texas. He can't stand Texas and I think he takes unneccessary digs at the university. Actually, I didn't. "Tech scores tons of points and Texas hasn't" was the point I was trying to make, that's why it's only a 5 point spread. And good job! I can't stand Texas! Isn't it a thing called a rivalry?
Some Buckeye fan about 2 weeks ago was saying their only threat left was Michigan (not sure if it was you). I was telling them Purdue has a great chance to beat them. I believe Illinios has a decent chance--but their run defense isn't as good as Purdue's. Illinois will also have to put up some points on them through the air--we will see. I am no Buckeye fan, but I pretty much agree with what you say. They of course deserve all the #2 votes at this point even if they may not be the second best team. I will say though that not playing Iowa and have them doing it also kind of hurts OSUs case that running their Big 10 schedule is that impressive. OSU still has the 3rd best team in the Big 10 to play and won't play the 2nd at all--so as of now they have mainly beaten average to below average Big 10 teams even if the conference overall is good. Though both at home, they however deserve a lot of credit for spanking WSU, and the Tech beating was a quality nonconference win too. Looking at SOS (middle or below most the teams on there heels) and where their felow 1-loss Big 10 team is at--I think if the Buckeye's lose most computer polls will not have them in top 4.
Personally I would take Texas -5. Texas matches up very well against Tech. Texas's defensive strength is overall speed and the general play of the secondary. Texas's weakest link on defense is run defense--not something Tech's offense is in a great position to exploit. Also, Texas has given 34 up to OU on OU's best day, 24 to NU, 14 to KSU and 10 to ISU. Tech was able to put 17 on ISU, 13 on CU, --Tech is not going to score a lot on Texas (I'd be surprised if the hit in the twenties). Against OSU, Miss, NCS, A&M, Missou, and CU--Tech has given up around close to 40 a game. Personally, as a Texas fan, I am more worried about McNeal and the Aggies than Tech--even with the switch of venues. As long as the players don't believe this too we will be fine. I am thinking Texas wins by two touchdowns plus.
Cat- For about the last 6+ years, I've always thought of KSU as being fraudulent. The ultimate "beat the inferior teams, lose to the superior teams" team. I would say that WSU is better than KSU. I don't give a damn that the game was played at KSU's Jr. High-esque stadium (despite their new additions).
Well, I just wish somebody in your state could afford to have a team in the first place. What, you couldn't steal one from the indians? It is, but it didn't need to be stated. How many points did OU score against USF. Dont' give me that "they're better than Baylor crap, cuz I don't want to hear it. Tech has always scored a ton of points. Same as last year. We beat them by 34 then. I made the comment that I felt the spread was too low. I don't care how many points one team has scored. That spread is too low, imo. Go rob an indian casino or something.
I could care less how big their stadium is, look at the record, and look at the comments from opposing players and coaches. That is a tough place to play. Also, I wouldn't exactly call USC and Iowa St. "inferior".
This is kind of funny. It's an article on how tougher graduation standards could hurt the top programs, and included are the graduation rates from the top 25 programs over the last several years. There's one number that kind of jumps out at you... http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/5888588 (Yes, I know this is partially due to the previous coaching staff and their players, but I also know that a large part of the 2000 championship season was from those players.)
Desert- Yeah I did think a couple weeks ago that Illinois was going to be a cakewalk. My problem is they have won 3 of their last 4 and are playing well. That alone would not convince me, but with the Michigan game a week away I think OSU could easily overlook these guys. I guess I am of the mindset that this weeks game is a lot tougher than I expected. Again I hope the team is as concerned as I am. If OSU plays well we win, if we don't well it could be interesting. I do know we'll have to score more than 10 to beat Illinois.
Doesn't Bill Snyder have a 1-20 or something like that record against top 10 teams since he has been the coach at KSU?
What's happened in previous seasons has no relevance to this season. None. This season, he is 1-1 against top 10 teams, with a win over USC, and a loss to Texas.
But the point is to reinforce kidrock's post which is KSU is infamous for beating up weak teams and folding when they play tough teams. I'm sorry and I am not trying to be inflammatory, but beating a team that consistently loses to top ranked teams is not really that great an accomplishment, at least not until KSU starts winning those games. And that record is KSU's record against teams that are ranked in the top 10 at that time they, KSU, played them , not where they finish. When they beat USC this season, USC was ranked around #20 or so.
If we go by that, then I still say Texas was screwed. Texas lost to the #2 team in the country (when they played, right?), WSU lost to the #5 team in the country (when they played, right?) Obviously I'm not flaming you and I do realize polls are subjective, but I think all of this stuff is real silly. I think alot of ap voters take it out on Texas in the polls because they have been "chronic underachievers" and some ap voters feel they've been bamboozled by prior Texas teams. I personally think last year shouldn't really matter. And why is USC rated ahead of KSU?
I didn't think this was noteworthy enough to start a new thread, so I'll just throw it in here. College Football Award voters are idiots. Look at the finalist lists for pretty much any award, and on there is at least one name that is glaringly out of place. Its like they don't even watch college football.
The last statement is ridiculous. All polls in the first month to two months are based on is preseason hype and talent. Just because USC wasn't hyped early in the season as a good team doesn't mean they are any less good than anyone else. It's much more accurate to judge this "record against top 10 teams" business toward the end of the season, when we've seen teams play an adequate number of games, instead of by some early-season ranking based on talent.
Cat (and gr8-1), I don't think you are understanding what I am saying about KSU. Yes, KSU is playing well right now and USC is a good team that KSU beat this season. gr8-1's post is one that I have no problem with but I am not talking about that. I am talking about the reputation of Kansas State. Yea, that's great that they beat USC and that USC is now ranked in the top 10 and all, but do you honestly think that KSU could beat USC now? Unfortunately, there are a lot of college football fans who remember when KSU plays a team in the top 10 at that time and lose. They don't remember when KSU beats a team that was ranked #20 at the time but improved as the season went along and finished in the top 10. Yea, preseason rankings are nothing but hype and they generally suck, but you and I know that they are always going to be there and it is because college football loves to have something to talk about, especially if it sparks interest. The problem with KSU beating USC (and I know you will disagree) is that it was not a big game at that time . Now, it was one of the better games of that weekend, but looking at where these teams were relative in the rankings it was just one of the better matchups of that weekend. Like it or not, call it unfair, but that KSU - USC game was just not a game that was circled on college football's games to see list like OU-Texas, Miami-Florida (this was before the season), Ohio State-Michigan, etc. Now, the same thing was true with Miami under Butch Davis. The Canes never could beat FSU or Virginia Tech under Davis until his last season in 2000. I heard it over and over and honestly, I knew people were going to keep saying this but they kept saying that Miami could not beat FSU or Virginia Tech under Butch Davis. They were not going to be convinced until Miami actually did it. Now that Miami has done that and done it the last 2 years (3 counting just FSU), it is something you don't hear anymore. The same thing holds true with Kansas State. Until they beat a team that is ranked in the top 5 or even the top 10 when they play them, no one is going to give them complete respect. They are going to be looked at like Georgia, USC, and Ohio State as a team that can win 8 to even 10 games sometimes but always lose that big one. If they had beaten Texas this year, that would have gone a long way, IMO, to dispel that thinking. However, it didn't happen and the thinking still exists. It is also the same thinking that exists with Mack Brown beating OU. Until he does it, there are always going to be lots of people that will assume that his team will choke in that game. That is all I am trying to say about KSU. It is like you are surprised that people don't think that KSU is a great team....it is because of their reputation of choking in the big game & until they win one, it is always going to be there.
It is, but it didn't need to be stated. How many points did OU score against USF. Dont' give me that "they're better than Baylor crap, cuz I don't want to hear it. Sorry for answering your question. I didn't start this negative stuff, you did. Go rob an indian casino or something. Go climb down a chimney or something. Or mow my lawn. Well, I just wish somebody in your state could afford to have a team in the first place. What, you couldn't steal one from the indians? If that was correct, it might be funny.
