Lonny's Thoughts on the UT-TTU Game Thread

[F18mustang]

I saved your seat, Lonny. :D

[BDB]

i just puked over the site of the title.

can we get some bandwidth and set it aside for a loony only portion of the board?

[wesaxman34]

I saved your seat, Lonny. :D

:notworthy

I always love reading his posts, so why not?

[wesaxman34]

We may have to keep this thread alive until he comes back...he said he wouldn't be able to comment on the game tonight.

[lonny23]

OK,

Here are my thoughts. I got to see the game starting after the UT TD to make it 24-10. As soon as it was acceptable to leave the Air Force Ball (After we sung the Air Force Song), I hightailed it out of there. The Ball was on base and I already had the TV on at work! Work is closer and Tech had never lost a game I saw at work.

Outside of the pain of seeing Texas kill Tech in 04 and 05 with Vince Young, this is the only Texas game since 03 that I didn't leave with a bad taste in my mouth. It would've been nice to get a helmet to helmet penalty on that Potts fumble, but I didn't see anything that was openly shady to me in this game and I'm thankful for that. That offensive pass interference on Tech might've been a decent call. All I saw on the replay was contact after the ball was in the air, but my guess is there was some contact before the ball was in the air. They called Texas for holding once while I was watching and there weren't any calls that looked to be purposely helping Tech or Texas. At least what I saw was a legitimately called game.

Tech had 74 yards more than Texas, but an extra turnover. I've often said a turnover is worth about 100 yards and 7 points, so Texas effectively had 26 more yards than Tech and all that equates to 1.82 points, but we'll give Texas 3 points for it. The other 7 points in the margin came on the punt return. The final score statistically played close to what would be expected.

I really don't have any gripes. Tech played hard being short-handed and I still feel great about their season. Texas deserved to win because they were better on special teams (Punts and punt returns) and they made fewer mistakes. My whole deal about this game going in was that I knew Tech was a lot better than they were being given credit for, but now people are noticing. I'll fall on the floor laughing if OU beats Texas in a close one and Tech blows out OU and ends up winning the Big 12. With all the crying Mack has done, I wouldn't be shocked if Stoops really lets Tech pour it on if he gets down and can't come back. I mean part of what knocked Texas out of the title game was Tech not doing stuff to keep it from getting worse in Norman!:D The close loss in Norman is what Tech needed last year and didn't get. As far as OU goes, the defense is great and Jones looked decent yesterday.

[yankee]

OK,

Here are my thoughts. I got to see the game starting after the UT TD to make it 24-10. As soon as it was acceptable to leave the Air Force Ball (After we sung the Air Force Song), I hightailed it out of there. The Ball was on base and I already had the TV on at work! Work is closer and Tech had never lost a game I saw at work.

Outside of the pain of seeing Texas kill Tech in 04 and 05 with Vince Young, this is the only Texas game since 03 that I didn't leave with a bad taste in my mouth. It would've been nice to get a helmet to helmet penalty on that Potts fumble, but I didn't see anything that was openly shady to me in this game and I'm thankful for that. That offensive pass interference on Tech might've been a decent call. All I saw on the replay was contact after the ball was in the air, but my guess is there was some contact before the ball was in the air. They called Texas for holding once while I was watching and there weren't any calls that looked to be purposely helping Tech or Texas. At least what I saw was a legitimately called game.

Tech had 74 yards more than Texas, but an extra turnover. I've often said a turnover is worth about 100 yards and 7 points, so Texas effectively had 26 more yards than Tech and all that equates to 1.82 points, but we'll give Texas 3 points for it. The other 7 points in the margin came on the punt return. The final score statistically played close to what would be expected.

I really don't have any gripes. Tech played hard being short-handed and I still feel great about their season. Texas deserved to win because they were better on special teams (Punts and punt returns) and they made fewer mistakes. My whole deal about this game going in was that I knew Tech was a lot better than they were being given credit for, but now people are noticing. I'll fall on the floor laughing if OU beats Texas in a close one and Tech blows out OU and ends up winning the Big 12. With all the crying Mack has done, I wouldn't be shocked if Stoops really lets Tech pour it on if he gets down and can't come back. I mean part of what knocked Texas out of the title game was Tech not doing stuff to keep it from getting worse in Norman!:D The close loss in Norman is what Tech needed last year and didn't get. As far as OU goes, the defense is great and Jones looked decent
yesterday.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


you could only WISH that were the case. tech never did anything the whole game because OU shut down your run game and harrassed harrell all night. harrell was in the whole game, and you guys got a garbage touchdown in the very last minute or so. so much for "not doing stuff". don't try to spin the facts to make yourself feel betting about getting straight up embarassed in norman last year.

[lonny23]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


you could only WISH that were the case. tech never did anything the whole game because OU shut down your run game and harrassed harrell all night. harrell was in the whole game, and you guys got a garbage touchdown in the very last minute or so. so much for "not doing stuff". don't try to spin the facts to make yourself feel betting about getting straight up embarassed in norman last year.
I'm not denying your offense or defense. I was talking about Leach's decisions about when to go for it to include deep in Tech territory. I was talking about him throwing and the clock stopping vs. running the ball and giving up fewer points.

[BDB]

lonny, i retract my previous statement. good post.

[toonman]

OK,

.....and Tech blows out OU and ends up winning the Big 12.

.....will not happen this century, let alone this year.

[F18mustang]

.....will not happen this century, let alone this year.

The 2010 Tech Football Team begs to differ.

[BDB]

lonny and f18

http://www.hyperhappen.com/uploads/images/back%20to%20the%20future.jpg

[F18mustang]

lonny and f18

http://www.hyperhappen.com/uploads/images/back%20to%20the%20future.jpg

Keep looking away from it, but don't forget that you won't have the fishing buddies next year. And OU won't have Mr. Crosseyed.

[BDB]

Keep looking away from it, but don't forget that you won't have the fishing buddies next year. And OU won't have Mr. Crosseyed.

word. that's gonna be a hell of a replacement job for GG and *insert wr from texas here*. the plus is that tre newton (god willing) will have a season under his belt and buckner should be used to playing TE, by then.

i could be wrong, but texas' secondary will be sr./jr. heavy, next year, right?

[Empire strikes back]

http://i36.tinypic.com/245devq.gif

[yankee]

The 2010 Tech Football Team begs to differ.

the 2010 tech football team hasn't taken the field yet, and neither has the 2010 OU football team.

oh, and the 2010 game is in norman right?

[yankee]

Keep looking away from it, but don't forget that you won't have the fishing buddies next year. And OU won't have Mr. Crosseyed.

that last statement of yours has not been confirmed yet. no word on whether sam leaves or not.
and even if sam does leave, we have the 'stache to tear up tech...just to keep that "tradition" going.

[Katytigers74]

that last statement of yours has not been confirmed yet. no word on whether sam leaves or not.
and even if sam does leave, we have the 'stache to tear up tech...just to keep that "tradition" going.i doubt sam will stay in college.Landry could be as good as bradford in the future..

[Favpack]

I agree with your assessment totally Lonny. Hate to say it - but Sergio should have been flagged 15, and Tech keeps the ball. You cannot launch yourself head first into the qb's chin - that's the whole point with the rules.

The better team won at home, but anyone even only partially biased came away more impressed with Tech than UT.

[lonny23]

I agree with your assessment totally Lonny. Hate to say it - but Sergio should have been flagged 15, and Tech keeps the ball. You cannot launch yourself head first into the qb's chin - that's the whole point with the rules.

The better team won at home, but anyone even only partially biased came away more impressed with Tech than UT.
The game opened up a bunch of eyes in this state and outside the state. I think people now know that Tech needs to be in the Top 25 because they're Tech and will be good every year. Texas fans know they're going to have a hard time beating Tech in Austin and it's to the point now that they're worried they might lose in Lubbock.

[pied]

The game opened up a bunch of eyes in this state and outside the state. I think people now know that Tech needs to be in the Top 25 because they're Tech and will be good every year. Texas fans know they're going to have a hard time beating Tech in Austin and it's to the point now that they're worried they might lose in Lubbock.


I think you're misreading a bit. Nothing that was frustrating about the Tech win was not evident against La-Monroe or Wyoming. I think we have been worried about going to Lubbock for at least 20 years.

Certainly Potts looked good, and I said a long time ago, I'd rather play him in September than late Oct/Nov. Tech will roll up some yards and points. I thought the defense looked very good overall and I would give them a very high grade, despite 420 yards. Holding them to 24 points is good. The defense stepped up when it needed to. On top of that the dive chart looks pretty good.

1st - 10 plays 56 yards and a FG
2nd - 3 plays 2 yards and a punt
3rd - 6 plays 6 yards a a punt
4th - 4 plays negative 20 yards and a punt
5th - 9 plays and 17 ards and a fumble
6th - 3 plays and 3 yards and a punt
7th - 5 plays and 24 yards and a punt
8th -3 plays and 20 yards end of half


9th - 11 plays and 61 yards and a TD
10th - 8 plays and 84 yards and TD
11th - 1 play and zero yards and an int
12th - 3 plays and negative 5 yards and a fumble
13th -8 plays and 88 yards and a TD
14th 7 plays and 25 yards, turned over on downs.

[toonman]

The 2010 Tech Football Team begs to differ.

Throughout history Tech has won next to nothing in college football, so why should 2010 be any different. For Tech 2010 will be the same old song, but a different verse.

[F18mustang]

Throughout history Tech has won next to nothing in college football, so why should 2010 be any different. For Tech 2010 will be the same old song, but a different verse.

Spoken like a true Tech hater.

We won't graduate many at all next year. All of the skill positions are Juniors or redshirt freshman this year. We will be returning a lot and the rest of the conference will be losing a lot.

If history mattered then how the the hell did George Mason get to the Final Four in 2006? Weak arguement.

[Firebird]

Throughout history Tech has won next to nothing in college football, so why should 2010 be any different. For Tech 2010 will be the same old song, but a different verse.

Just like Lonny is mistaken about compiling stats and trying to spot trends involving games played with completely different players, you're wrong about this. History doesn't tell me anything except about history. I'll wait till the end of 2009 to see how TTU handles the rest of the schedule before proclaiming them champions, though. However, they are going to have a lot coming back and some of the conferences' better teams (UT, OSU, OU) are looking to lose a whole bunch.

[pied]

Just like Lonny is mistaken about compiling stats and trying to spot trends involving games played with completely different players, you're wrong about this. History doesn't tell me anything except about history. I'll wait till the end of 2009 to see how TTU handles the rest of the schedule before proclaiming them champions, though. However, they are going to have a lot coming back and some of the conferences' better teams (UT, OSU, OU) are looking to lose a whole bunch.

Texas loses the McCoy/Shipley twins and three OL.

On D we will lose Kindle/Houston from the DL and Muckelroy at LB.

[Firebird]

Texas loses the McCoy/Shipley twins and three OL.

On D we will lose Kindle/Houston from the DL and Muckelroy at LB.

Losing McCoy/Shipley/OL is going to be tough to replace. Texas recruits well at OL, but anytime you lose most of your starting line it's going to be tough to replace, the most underrated position in college football. We'll see how gameday ready GG is next year. The secondary will be a strength.

I also have to add that you're assuming that no jrs delcare for the draft, I think that might be a possibility with Chykie Brown.

[pied]

I'd hate to say that losing the three OL will be more hurtful than losing McCoy, but as far as continuity it may be accurate.

We have some pretty good depth there, but that's one unit where experience is perhaps most important. Probably need to be more concerned about this year this year though.

The sceondary is stout, and it's not impossible to think that one or more takes off after this year.

[BDB]

I'd hate to say that losing the three OL will be more hurtful than losing McCoy, but as far as continuity it may be accurate.

We have some pretty good depth there, but that's one unit where experience is perhaps most important. Probably need to be more concerned about this year this year though.

The sceondary is stout, and it's not impossible to think that one or more takes off after this year.

GG won't look like much in or out of the pocket if he doesn't have time to sit in the pocket. i think the OL is bigger loss then the ACU twins, imo.

[pied]

GG won't look like much in or out of the pocket if he doesn't have time to sit in the pocket. i think the OL is bigger loss then the ACU twins, imo.

I tend to agree wth you. To add though, Snow/Allen/Poehlman are all getting a bit more PT than GG, to go along with Hix/Huey returning.

[toonman]

Spoken like a true Tech hater.

We won't graduate many at all next year. All of the skill positions are Juniors or redshirt freshman this year. We will be returning a lot and the rest of the conference will be losing a lot.

If history mattered then how the the hell did George Mason get to the Final Four in 2006? Weak arguement.

If history does not matter, can I expect North Texas to win the National Championship in 2010.

[toonman]

Just like Lonny is mistaken about compiling stats and trying to spot trends involving games played with completely different players, you're wrong about this. History doesn't tell me anything except about history. I'll wait till the end of 2009 to see how TTU handles the rest of the schedule before proclaiming them champions, though. However, they are going to have a lot coming back and some of the conferences' better teams (UT, OSU, OU) are looking to lose a whole bunch.

I guarantee one of the following will win the National Championship in 2010 :-

Florida
Texas
OU
USC
LSU
Alabama
Ohio State
Miami
Tennessee
Michigan

Why, because history tells us that one of these teams will win the national championship; just look back over the last 20 years or so and one of these teams wins it in most years.

I can also guarantee that none of the follwing will the national championship

Texas Tech
Baylor
A&M
SMU
Rice
Houston

I could name a bunch of other small, never win championships schools, who simply do not win championships.

I am sorry but history tells us a lot and this case history tells us that Texas Tech will not win a national championship.

[F18mustang]

If history does not matter, can I expect North Texas to win the National Championship in 2010.

I guarantee one of the following will win the National Championship in 2010 :-

Florida
Texas
OU
USC
LSU
Alabama
Ohio State
Miami
Tennessee
Michigan

Why, because history tells us that one of these teams will win the national championship; just look back over the last 20 years or so and one of these teams wins it in most years.

I can also guarantee that none of the follwing will the national championship

Texas Tech
Baylor
A&M
SMU
Rice
Houston

I could name a bunch of other small, never win championships schools, who simply do not win championships.

I am sorry but history tells us a lot and this case history tells us that Texas Tech will not win a national championship.

Did history say that Utah was going to beat Bama last year? Did history say that Boise State would have gone undefeated in 2006? Did history say that Texas was going to beat the (then) dynasty that was USC? Did history tell you that Michigan, Notre Dame, and Tennessee would have has losing records last year?

Its why you play the game, but how about lets not play the game and let history decide. Its what makes college football better than anything else, new twists and new powers that dethrone the old.

History is all that its good for, to look back and not look forward.

[Firebird]

I guarantee one of the following will win the National Championship in 2010 :-

Florida
Texas
OU
USC
LSU
Alabama
Ohio State
Miami
Tennessee
Michigan

Why, because history tells us that one of these teams will win the national championship; just look back over the last 20 years or so and one of these teams wins it in most years.

I can also guarantee that none of the follwing will the national championship

Texas Tech
Baylor
A&M
SMU
Rice
Houston

I could name a bunch of other small, never win championships schools, who simply do not win championships.

I am sorry but history tells us a lot and this case history tells us that Texas Tech will not win a national championship.

What a ridiculous bit of "analysis". Where on your list is Nebraska? Where' Florida State? Where's Washington or Colorado? Georgia Tech? Those schools have won national championships in the past 20 years, in Nebraska's case more than several of the schools on the list.

The schools you listed have the best shot at the NC because right now they have recruited the best players and have some of the best coaches, not because of "history". And I hate to tell you, but there was a time when Miami was a joke of a program. Was a time when people would have snorted at a Florida NC. "History" has nothing to do with how a team performs in any given year, except for the fact that teams that traditionally do well have a better shot at getting good players and good coaches. But programs can be built, and they can be dismantled. Ask the Irish about that.

If Tech has a season approaching last year, they'll be a contender for the Big XII title. Not because of history but because Leach has done a good job stockpiling talent and coaching on the South Plains.

[Firebird]

By the way, there was a stretch of 30+ years that UT didn't win an MNC, so history should have told us that they never would again.

[wesaxman34]

I am sorry but history tells us a lot and this case history tells us that Texas Tech will not win a national championship.

Here are some teams within the last 30 years who won their first and only National Championship:

Clemson - 1981
Colorado - 1990
Washington - 1991

Virginia Tech has been close, but they still don't have one. Based on your statement, none of those 3 teams should have won a NC and teams like Virginia Tech will never win one. Texas Tech hasn't been to a championship before, but there's always a first time for everything. Your argument is legitimate in some ways, but it's still weak.

[lonny23]

I think you're misreading a bit. Nothing that was frustrating about the Tech win was not evident against La-Monroe or Wyoming. I think we have been worried about going to Lubbock for at least 20 years.

Certainly Potts looked good, and I said a long time ago, I'd rather play him in September than late Oct/Nov. Tech will roll up some yards and points. I thought the defense looked very good overall and I would give them a very high grade, despite 420 yards. Holding them to 24 points is good. The defense stepped up when it needed to. On top of that the dive chart looks pretty good.

1st - 10 plays 56 yards and a FG
2nd - 3 plays 2 yards and a punt
3rd - 6 plays 6 yards a a punt
4th - 4 plays negative 20 yards and a punt
5th - 9 plays and 17 ards and a fumble
6th - 3 plays and 3 yards and a punt
7th - 5 plays and 24 yards and a punt
8th -3 plays and 20 yards end of half


9th - 11 plays and 61 yards and a TD
10th - 8 plays and 84 yards and TD
11th - 1 play and zero yards and an int
12th - 3 plays and negative 5 yards and a fumble
13th -8 plays and 88 yards and a TD
14th 7 plays and 25 yards, turned over on downs.
1. My comment about Tech was about them being better than people expected, not about uncovering Texas problems.
2. The drive chart does show Texas shutting down Tech numerous times.

[lonny23]

Here are some teams within the last 30 years who won their first and only National Championship:

Clemson - 1981
Colorado - 1990
Washington - 1991

Virginia Tech has been close, but they still don't have one. Based on your statement, none of those 3 teams should have won a NC and teams like Virginia Tech will never win one. Texas Tech hasn't been to a championship before, but there's always a first time for everything. Your argument is legitimate in some ways, but it's still weak.I think it's funny he's trashing Tech with a Yosemite Sam avatar!:D

[F18mustang]

I think it's funny he's trashing Tech wirh a Yosemite Sam avatar!:D

We're past the old SWC days, as he does live in the past. Its all pirates now and we're dressing Raider Red up as pirate as I speak.

[toonman]

Did history say that Utah was going to beat Bama last year? Did history say that Boise State would have gone undefeated in 2006? Did history say that Texas was going to beat the (then) dynasty that was USC? Did history tell you that Michigan, Notre Dame, and Tennessee would have has losing records last year?

Its why you play the game, but how about lets not play the game and let history decide. Its what makes college football better than anything else, new twists and new powers that dethrone the old.

History is all that its good for, to look back and not look forward.

Still does not change the fact that Tech will not go undefeated in 2010.

[Dawg Fan]

Still does not change the fact that Tech will not go undefeated in 2010.

you don't know what they will do in 2010. :rolleyes:

[toonman]

What a ridiculous bit of "analysis". Where on your list is Nebraska? Where' Florida State? Where's Washington or Colorado? Georgia Tech? Those schools have won national championships in the past 20 years, in Nebraska's case more than several of the schools on the list.

The schools you listed have the best shot at the NC because right now they have recruited the best players and have some of the best coaches, not because of "history". And I hate to tell you, but there was a time when Miami was a joke of a program. Was a time when people would have snorted at a Florida NC. "History" has nothing to do with how a team performs in any given year, except for the fact that teams that traditionally do well have a better shot at getting good players and good coaches. But programs can be built, and they can be dismantled. Ask the Irish about that.

If Tech has a season approaching last year, they'll be a contender for the Big XII title. Not because of history but because Leach has done a good job stockpiling talent and coaching on the South Plains.

It is not a ridiculous bit of "analysis"; as you have proven my point exactly and the reason the schools I have listed will win the NC is because ‘historically’ these are the elite programs who can always recruit the best players and attract best coaches. It is because of ‘history’ that the elite programs keep being the elite programs.

At the end of the day Tech gets the rejects that OU and Texas do not want. You are what you are and Tech will always be a second tier D1 school; with no chance of winning a national championship.

[toonman]

you don't know what they will do in 2010. :rolleyes:

You are correct, but I am certain it will not involve going undefeated and winning a national championship.

[Firebird]

It is not a ridiculous bit of "analysis"; as you have proven my point exactly and the reason the schools I have listed will win the NC is because ‘historically’ these are the elite programs who can always recruit the best players and attract best coaches. It is because of ‘history’ that the elite programs keep being the elite programs.

At the end of the day Tech gets the rejects that OU and Texas do not want. You are what you are and Tech will always be a second tier D1 school; with no chance of winning a national championship.

Except that by following your analysis you don't allow for Washington, Colorado, Clemson, or even Florida State to ever win a national championship. And in the 1980s you would be telling me that Miami will never win a national championship. Look how that worked out.

You also left off the list some of the most successful programs of the past 20 years, like Florida State or Nebraska.

Great programs can be brought down low (see Dame, Notre) and programs that had been mediocre can be turned into powerhouses (see Florida, Miami, Florida State, Virginia Tech). And very few programs keep being "elite" programs without serious slumps. Ask USC fans, Texas fans, Alabama fans, LSU fans, Tennessee fans about those. From 1996-2001 USC was a bit over .500 and people laughed at the Pete Carroll hire. Until Howard Schnellenberger arrived at Miami the U was a school that was .500 historically.

What your analysis tells me is that you've been paying a little bit of attention to college football for maybe 15 years or so and think that things always have been and always will be the way they are now.

[HUM398]

Losing McCoy/Shipley/OL is going to be tough to replace. Texas recruits well at OL, but anytime you lose most of your starting line it's going to be tough to replace, the most underrated position in college football. We'll see how gameday ready GG is next year. The secondary will be a strength.

I also have to add that you're assuming that no jrs delcare for the draft, I think that might be a possibility with Chykie Brown.

I don't think Chykie Brown will declare. Unless he is a wins the Thorpe Award, he will be back. His stock simply won't be high enough.

as far as the offensive line, it will defenitly be tough to replace such a veteran line....BUT we are extremely talented in the depth chart.

Ashcraft, Walters, Kelly, and Poelhmann are an extremely talented group of Freshman offensive linemen....and huge.

We will have Hix and Huey returning....

Id project the future starting UT Offenseline as follows.

OT=Kyle Hix (6'7 320lbs)*
OG= Michael Huey (6'5 320lbs)*
C=David Snow (6'2 300lbs)
OG=Mason Walters (6'6 300lbs)
OT=Thomas Ashcraft (6'5 315lbs)
TE= D.J Grant (6'3 225lbs)

It will be a very young line, but an extremely talented one....Paden Kelly could also work his way in at Guard.

[Firebird]

I don't think Chykie Brown will declare. Unless he is a wins the Thorpe Award, he will be back. His stock simply won't be high enough.

as far as the offensive line, it will defenitly be tough to replace such a veteran line....BUT we are extremely talented in the depth chart.

Ashcraft, Walters, Kelly, and Poelhmann are an extremely talented group of Freshman offensive linemen....and huge.

We will have Hix and Huey returning....

Id project the future starting UT Offenseline as follows.

OT=Kyle Hix (6'7 320lbs)*
OG= Michael Huey (6'5 320lbs)*
C=David Snow (6'2 300lbs)
OG=Mason Walters (6'6 300lbs)
OT=Thomas Ashcraft (6'5 315lbs)
TE= D.J Grant (6'3 225lbs)

It will be a very young line, but an extremely talented one....Paden Kelly could also work his way in at Guard.


What is Huey's injury status?

The line is loaded with talent, but there is still going to be a learning curve. OL might be the toughest position to adjust to and play well at the college level. And with a first year QB playing behind a young line, there just will be some learning to do. The good thing for you is that there will probably be no clear Big XII favorite. TTU will return a lot and UT and OU will both be in the mix as always.

I also want to wait and see what A&M does this year, if they manage to beat their north foes and win a game or two in the south, they might be ready to do something next year. Probably not contend for a title, but they will have almost the entire team returning.

[lonny23]

It is not a ridiculous bit of "analysis"; as you have proven my point exactly and the reason the schools I have listed will win the NC is because ‘historically’ these are the elite programs who can always recruit the best players and attract best coaches. It is because of ‘history’ that the elite programs keep being the elite programs.

At the end of the day Tech gets the rejects that OU and Texas do not want. You are what you are and Tech will always be a second tier D1 school; with no chance of winning a national championship.
1. Tech signed 3 guys in 09 that were originally OU commits.
2. Tech signed 6 guys in 09 that had OU offers.
3. Tech has never signed a guy that shows a UT offer, but that comes with a major caveat. Texas won't publicly show they're offering a kid unless they think they're getting him. It helps maintain the image that UT gets who they want. We always hear that UT doesn't make offers before Junior Day and they didn't show any offers to the big-time back in 2011 when I last looked, but I also have a friend who knows for a fact that Texas has offered Aaron Green and Malcolm Brown. It's a big lie with those cats just like the LSU Rivals guys.

[pied]

What is Huey's injury status?

The line is loaded with talent, but there is still going to be a learning curve. OL might be the toughest position to adjust to and play well at the college level. And with a first year QB playing behind a young line, there just will be some learning to do. The good thing for you is that there will probably be no clear Big XII favorite. TTU will return a lot and UT and OU will both be in the mix as always.

I also want to wait and see what A&M does this year, if they manage to beat their north foes and win a game or two in the south, they might be ready to do something next year. Probably not contend for a title, but they will have almost the entire team returning.

He played Saturday night. HAven't heard anything about it lingering this week.

a$m's conference schedule appears to be brutal next year.

[pied]

1. Tech signed 3 guys in 09 that were originally OU commits.
2. Tech signed 6 guys in 09 that had OU offers.
3. Tech has never signed a guy that shows a UT offer, but that comes with a major caveat. Texas won't publicly show they're offering a kid unless they think they're getting him. It helps maintain the image that UT gets who they want. We always hear that UT doesn't make offers before Junior Day and they didn't show any offers to the big-time back in 2011 when I last looked, but I also have a friend who knows for a fact that Texas has offered Aaron Green and Malcolm Brown. It's a big lie with those cats just like the LSU Rivals guys.


Just out of curiosity, why would the kids not tell the world they had a Texas offer if they did?

Pretty easy to show it to everyone and prove it.

There have been many players commit to other schools with a Texas offer, jsut not as many as most schools.

[tayb]

1. Tech signed 3 guys in 09 that were originally OU commits.
2. Tech signed 6 guys in 09 that had OU offers.
3. Tech has never signed a guy that shows a UT offer, but that comes with a major caveat. Texas won't publicly show they're offering a kid unless they think they're getting him. It helps maintain the image that UT gets who they want. We always hear that UT doesn't make offers before Junior Day and they didn't show any offers to the big-time back in 2011 when I last looked, but I also have a friend who knows for a fact that Texas has offered Aaron Green and Malcolm Brown. It's a big lie with those cats just like the LSU Rivals guys.

Texas has lost plenty of recruits they have offered to, Ryan Perilloux comes to mind as a rather large one. Do you think Texas forces these kids to remain quiet and not tell a soul they have been offered or even has the power to do so? It's pretty easy to tell if a kid has an offer from Texas, just ask him if he has an offer from Texas.

[pied]

Corey Nelson, Ross Apo, Ahmad Dixon.......

[toonman]

Except that by following your analysis you don't allow for Washington, Colorado, Clemson, or even Florida State to ever win a national championship. And in the 1980s you would be telling me that Miami will never win a national championship. Look how that worked out.

You also left off the list some of the most successful programs of the past 20 years, like Florida State or Nebraska.

Great programs can be brought down low (see Dame, Notre) and programs that had been mediocre can be turned into powerhouses (see Florida, Miami, Florida State, Virginia Tech). And very few programs keep being "elite" programs without serious slumps. Ask USC fans, Texas fans, Alabama fans, LSU fans, Tennessee fans about those. From 1996-2001 USC was a bit over .500 and people laughed at the Pete Carroll hire. Until Howard Schnellenberger arrived at Miami the U was a school that was .500 historically.

What your analysis tells me is that you've been paying a little bit of attention to college football for maybe 15 years or so and think that things always have been and always will be the way they are now.

We will have to agree to disagree, but in general the national championship will be won by one of the teams I listed in my original post. Very, very infrequently does one of the ‘other’ schools win it all. If you look back to 50 years of national championships, historically, it is the same names that appear again and again. I would happily wager that the 2009 national championship will be won by one of the schools I listed in my original post. I will go further and say that the national championship will be won by a school that has won it before and will not be won for the first time by any school.

[wesaxman34]

We will have to agree to disagree, but in general the national championship will be won by one of the teams I listed in my original post. Very, very infrequently does one of the ‘other’ schools win it all. If you look back to 50 years of national championships, historically, it is the same names that appear again and again. I would happily wager that the 2009 national championship will be won by one of the schools I listed in my original post. I will go further and say that the national championship will be won by a school that has won it before and will not be won for the first time by any school.

So you just admitted that history does not necessarily predict the future. There are very strong trends in history that can HELP predict the future, but to say a school will NEVER win a championship because of the history is downright biased and close minded.

[lonny23]

Just out of curiosity, why would the kids not tell the world they had a Texas offer if they did?

Pretty easy to show it to everyone and prove it.

There have been many players commit to other schools with a Texas offer, jsut not as many as most schools.
1. Kids do talk. That's how Malcolm Brown and Aaron Green found out they were both getting the same "You're the only kid I'm recruiting at RB" song and dance routine. I know that because I know a guy that has coached both players previously. Furthermore, not only is OU going after those 2, but they have also offered Mr. Abilene and Mr. Odessa in 2011!:D
2. No matter what kids say, that still doesn't mean Rivals sites are going to post it. It took about 2 months of fighting back and forth before Terry McDaniel's dad faxed an offer sheet to Tech so LSU would quit lying about not offering. I don't think the Brown or Green family will do that.
3. As far as the numbers on Rivals go, there isn't another college in the country that does like Texas and gets 20 something kids out of like 30-32 offers. USC doesn't do it and neither does Florida or OU. All those colleges offer at least 50-60 kids to get their class. OU is over 90 some years. Tech is always over 100. I know Texas offers more kids than they show, but that tears down the "We're Texas and we get who we want" mantra.

[lonny23]

Texas has lost plenty of recruits they have offered to, Ryan Perilloux comes to mind as a rather large one. Do you think Texas forces these kids to remain quiet and not tell a soul they have been offered or even has the power to do so? It's pretty easy to tell if a kid has an offer from Texas, just ask him if he has an offer from Texas.
Texas doesn't get every kid they offer. Perriloux was a commit and will always show as an offer. All I'm saying is look at every other team in the country and you'll see a lot more offers than commits. Texas is the only team in the country that gets over 50% of the kids they "Offer". I'm saying they hide offers publicly each year, but this year I have proof because my buddy told me they both got offers the first week of September (He had talked to them or their parents) and that was after I sent him an email saying Rivals wasn't showing anything for Texas, but was for OU. The big reason I sent him the email was to let him know not only was OU going for the 2 guys in SA, but the West Texas guys, too. I'm not griping about OU offering a bunch of kids, but I hate the lying about it. You ask multiple people out on dates and recruiting is no different.

[svhorns]

Corey Nelson, Ross Apo, Ahmad Dixon.......

Corey Nelson?

John Brantley is the biggest loss in recent memory.