• Facebook StumbleUpon
• Email

1. Parlin Hall said:

   July 10th, 2009 at 5:04 pm

   “I’m sure Congressmen have been contacted to rectify this huge injustice.”

   Surely there can be no happier development in this grand Republic than legislative oversight of sports.

2. CrazyJoeDavola said:

   July 11th, 2009 at 12:32 am

   Better over sports than over the economy. Although at the rate we’re going, it’s going to be both those and much more.

   I’d accuse Maisel of hyperbole, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Tebow’s cri de coeur has already been blended into Florida’s curriculum. This is the school system that produced Corrine Brown, after all.

3. Orakpo's stretched out jersey said:

   July 11th, 2009 at 4:35 am

   “…they’ve changed the rules and let offensive linemen basically hold on pass protection. ”

   Ya think?

4. BatesHorn said:

   July 11th, 2009 at 5:03 am

   While I’m sure the pros are much more complex than my untrained eye is able to deconstruct, I get the impression that innovative high school offenses and coaches (Art Briles, Todd Dodge please come to the front office’) are what’s driving the current spread innovation, not the NFL. I see some innovative stuff occuring at the pro level, but generally, the pros appear to still be trying to make outdated systems like the “west coast” offense succeed against hopelessly advanced zone blitz schemes.

   Or at least, that’s the way it appears to me, hangover and all….

5. RansomStoddard said:

   July 11th, 2009 at 5:10 am

   Agree with Bateshorn. That is why the NFL is, largely, horribly boring.

6. Facebook User said:

   July 11th, 2009 at 7:19 am

   CrazyJoe – Corch Urban Meyers.

7. BrickHorn said:

   July 11th, 2009 at 7:54 am

   Tebow is amazing! What other athlete is capable of both consistently running for 3-4 yards a carry AND hopping slightly in the air only to lob a football four yards downfield? Dude is a FREAK OF NATURE.

8. anonymous said:

   July 11th, 2009 at 8:50 am

   “Agree with Bateshorn. That is why the NFL is, largely, horribly boring.”

   That and they actually call holding.

9. RansomStoddard said:

   July 11th, 2009 at 8:56 am

   Give Tebow his due. Some pretty decent SEC teams and a better than average ou defense spent entire games trying to shut him down and were for the most part unsuccessful. I suspect he is one of those Brian Boddicker types that all opposing teams hate but secretly wish they had.

10. Facebook User said:

    July 11th, 2009 at 9:16 am

    I really like Tim Tebow. Great player who seems to be a great kid.

    I just find all media around him a bit tiring. I put in the same vein as Reggie Bush over Vince Young.

11. Captain Obvious said:

    July 11th, 2009 at 9:59 am

    Much of the work done at the high school level is the result of trying to minimize the need for linemen and the diversity in talent.

    It is difficult to stop the spread when most high schools really don’t have four defensive linemen that can rush the passer let alone enough quality defensive backs.

    The other factor that has to be remembered when you talk about the NFL is the need to protect your investment. With the hard salary cap teams take a position to protect what is often time their single biggest investment not expose it to injury and loss. Teams that are running the “wild hog” formation are doing it with a running back who is often times much cheaper than a franchise quarterback.

    This is something a coach at the high school or college level has to deal.

    Agree on Tebow. Can’t recall a situation where the guy hasn’t busted his ass on the field and many of the off the field traits that many seem ready to attack him for are the very things that make Colt endearing to so many Horn fans.

12. BrickHorn said:

    July 11th, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    Agree on Tebow. Can’t recall a situation where the guy hasn’t busted his ass on the field and many of the off the field traits that many seem ready to attack him for are the very things that make Colt endearing to so many Horn fans.

    True. But hard work, efficient play and willingness to do the little things does not an exciting player make. He’s a good football player, but there have been a lot of good players in college football history. Vince, Earl, and Red Grange were transcendent players.

13. Captain Obvious said:

    July 11th, 2009 at 1:58 pm

    Grange without a doubt was the player of his generation. Earl unfortunately was buried in Royal’s wishbone and while he had over 2,000 yards his first two seasons in Austin we never really got a chance to see what he was truly capable of until his senior season when he was the feature back in the offense.

    Vince’s career really can be encapsuled in a 19 game period from the Tech game of his soph. year until the championship game against USC. No doubt he was great over that period, but he opted to leave after his junior season and I think he would have gotten a huge amount of attention had he stayed his senior season, but he choose to leave.

    Teebow has been part of two national title teams and accounted for over 9,000 total yards and 110 td’s. You look at all the pounding he has taken in a very good conference and I think he does find himself positioned to be among the all-time greats of the sport if he leads UF to a third title.

    I will say that when you look at the numbers Colt was a bigger part of the Texas offense last season and his career numbers compare very favorably to Tebow’s. The two things Tebow has that Colt doesn’t are two conference titles and two national titles. Maybe we put too much stock into winning titles as a measure of an individual player?

14. Eskimohorn said:

    July 11th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    Tebow is the John Riggins of college QB’s. btw – Percy Harvin was the difference in the game last year.

15. Captain Obvious said:

    July 11th, 2009 at 3:36 pm

    Riggins is in the NFL Hall of Fame so there are worse things to be called.

16. BatesHorn said:

    July 11th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    While I’m drifting.a bit into hyperbole, I fail to see how Tebow is substantially different than Eric Crouch.

17. BatesHorn said:

    July 11th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    Minus the National Titles, of course. Then again, that 99 team was arguably the best team that season.

18. Will said:

    July 11th, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    RansomStoddard–Give Tebow his due. Some pretty decent SEC teams and a better than average ou defense spent entire games trying to shut him down and were for the most part unsuccessful. I suspect he is one of those Brian Boddicker types that all opposing teams hate but secretly wish they had.

    Yeah, buddy. You lost me when you said OU had a “better than average” defense. They sucked all year long and gave up 40+ to the Pokes in the last game of the regular season. How that’s “better than average” is beyond me unless your definition of average is very very poor.

    To the original point, nobody is faulting Jesus Tebow here. Kid is a decent player and seems like a swell guy off the field. Still, the slurpage over him is beyond embarrassing. I thought Reggie Bush and USC had their nuts shined clean by ESPN back in 2005. Little did I know what depths the media would stoop to just a few scant years later.

    Oh yeah, also? Colt McCoy would NEVER plant himself in front of a microphone and give such a sappy, pathetic, primadonna speech as Tebow did last year after losing to Ole Miss. That shit made me sick to my stomach and the media lapped it up like it was all you could eat caviar.

19. Facebook User said:

    July 11th, 2009 at 7:09 pm

    It really is always about context, isn’t it.

    Good stuff on this thread.

    The Eric Crouch statement, while a polemic to some, is an interesting comparison.

    And Brick strikes a chord as well. He’s a winner. A great kid. A leader. He’s not that ‘thrilling’, which was the putative point of the piece.

    And yeah, Harvin and their defense were certainly beyond enormous factors in Tim Tebow’s amazing ability “to lead” the Gators all the way. You don’t want to diminish the off the field stuff (the laying of hands on Percy’s bad ankle, etc.) but Percy and the D were vital. The QB position gets so much undue credit and blame.

    The thing that is the most irritating to me was the SEC halo. They lost to fucking Ole Miss. At Fucking Ben Swamp Griffin stadium. This was deemed a more acceptable loss than ours to the Tortilla Pirate on the plains in the biggest game in the history of rubedom.

    And I’m back to my original point which is fuck the police and the press.

    I have no idea if we’d have beaten them in January but sure as hell would have been a sparing partner than Stoops and his merry band.

    More Sangria. Good night.

20. Bornahorn said:

    July 11th, 2009 at 8:12 pm

    What SR said!

    I hadn’t focused on the diff between the UF loss at home and our loss on the road. Now I’m pissed all over again.

21. SizzleChest said:

    July 12th, 2009 at 5:45 am

    Yep, that shit still burns me up as well, but I can see it – a lot of it just goes to show you the extent of the real bias of the SEC over the Big 12. To an extent, though, that’s the Big 12s own fault, with Tech being one of the better examples of the source of the bias.

    Look at what Ole Miss did to Tech in the Cotton Bowl. To some, this even justifies the bias further.

22. Chuck Nevitt said:

    July 12th, 2009 at 6:34 am

    agreed. A deserving team would have beaten a one dimensional, over-rated tech team that night. we blew all our chances, and our last one with stone hands gideon dropping a softball lob. it’s that simple, we didn’t deserve to play florida.

23. Facebook User said:

    July 12th, 2009 at 7:47 am

    But OU did? Whom Gideon helped pummel?

    This is really more of an argument about the BCS. I think FLA was probably the best team last year but in the current system, they didn’t earn it any more than we did.

24. SizzleChest said:

    July 12th, 2009 at 9:37 am

    Yeah, Chuck, I think you hit your head on the rim or something. That was not quite what I was getting at.

25. WhoooTex said:

    July 12th, 2009 at 9:39 am

    “Grange without a doubt was the player of his generation… Vince’s career really can be encapsuled in a 19 game period from the Tech game of his soph. year until the championship game against USC.”

    Grange played a total of 20 games as a collegian.

26. Captain Obvious said:

    July 12th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    Whooo, You are right. Grange left college after 20 games and then basically breathed life into professional football. Can’t say the same for Vince’s NFL career.

27. Captain Obvious said:

    July 12th, 2009 at 3:55 pm

    That same Ole Miss team basically prison raped Tech in the Cotton Bowl.

28. Facebook User said:

    July 12th, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    This is true. Though I always put less stock in outcomes of tier 2 bowls.

29. Grantland Rice said:

    July 12th, 2009 at 9:29 pm

    I wrote prose remembered for the ages about Red Grange while Kirk Bohls wrote about Vince. Enough said.

30. Liberty Bowl said:

    July 12th, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    When did the Cotton Bowl pass us in the bowl hierarchy?

31. Liberty Bowl said:

    July 12th, 2009 at 9:32 pm

    Hey wait a minute!!! When did the Cotton Bowl move ahead of us in the bowl hierarchy?

32. Will said:

    July 13th, 2009 at 2:22 am

    Captain Obvious — I figured with a name like yours this would be, well, obvious to you, but football games are not transitive.

    What did Tech have to play for besides whatever shitty trophy the Cotton Bowl hands out that nobody cares about at that point of the season? They’d been fuckstomped by OU, their Big 12 and Nat’l title hopes dashed, Harrell was nursing a fucked up hand, and Crabtree was on a bum ankle and already seeing dollar signs.

    When they played us at Lubbutt in front of the largest and wildest crowd ever at that shithole of a stadium, they were undefeated and ranked in the Top 10.

    Are you really daft enough to believe Ole Miss saw the same football team we did that first night of November?

    Oklahoma didn’t deserve a Big 12 shot or a Nat’l title appearance over us and neither did Florida. We played a tougher schedule and as silly as it sounds, our loss was much better than either of theirs. We still got fucked. Why? Because the BCS and college football in general is completely fucked up and common sense and logic get thrown out the window for ratings, storylines, and idiocy.

    If any team deserved to be in the title game last year it was Texas. That’s not some homeristic tripe, it’s common fucking sense.

33. Captain Obvious said:

    July 13th, 2009 at 8:19 am

    Who said Texas didn’t belong?

    Texas played a tougher schedule than Florida?

34. Daniel said:

    July 13th, 2009 at 10:02 am

    Dear Florida,

    Congratulations on beating OU by 10 points on a neutral field.

    Your pals,

    The Texas Longhorns

35. Captain Obvious said:

    July 13th, 2009 at 10:14 am

    Fair or not. The unwritten rules for winning a national championships have included that it is better to lose early than late. UF lost to Ole Miss in Sept. before the BCS was evening being calculated. Texas lost late (a game in which Texas had the chance to win except for a few plays that weren’t made).

    Additionally, UF had nothing to do with the conference tiebreaker. They did what they had to do under the current system and put themselves in position to play for a title. Any debate for UT involves OU and not Florida.

36. springbranchhorn said:

    July 13th, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    OU did not belong

37. Ricky said:

    July 13th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    Captain,
    Since it takes two the tango, I agree that Florida deserved its piece of the pie. But they came in to the title game at #2. We should have been #1.

    We would have played just as tough a schedule as Florida when you compare the games that matter. Florida beat three teams ranked at the end of the bowl season (Alabama #6, Georgia #13, and FSU #21) and lost to one ranked team (Ole Miss #14 at home). We would have beaten 4 ranked teams (OU #5, Okie St #16, Missouri #19 x2) and lost to one ranked team (Tech #12 on the road). And prior to the big game our resume would have looked even better since OU would have been #3, Tech was #7, and Okie St was #13, while Bama was #4, Georgia was #15, Ole Miss was #25, and FSU was unranked.

    Unfortunately your unwritten rule is only written in pencil since OU lost to KSU in the Big 12 championship game in 2003 and LSU lost to Arkansas in late November a couple of years ago and still made the title game. It makes our being punished for losing on the road to Tech while Florida ultimately gets a pass for losing at home to Ole Miss seem as unfair as getting passed over by OU even though we beat them on a neutral field by 10.

38. Captain Obvious said:

    July 13th, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    Ricky, Wouldn’t an unwritten rule be definition be one that isn’t written at all?

    Skip that and move out to one of my favorite internet techniques. We pull the information that fits our argument and ignores the rest.

    First and foremost my position is not that OU belonged over Texas. Never took that point and never will as I don’t believe it. My point is and was that UF despite the one loss did have a strong enough schedule to merit inclusion.

    Second. you claim the Texas schedule “would” have been as tough as UF’s if count games according to you “that matter”. Trouble is that they all matter in some regard, Texas got hurt compared to UF by playing a game with fewer games against quality opponents, and never try to build a case on what “would” have happened when we all can see what did happen.

    Break the schedule down to three components. Non-conference, weakest conference opponents, and rest of the conference since these were the games that factored into the BCS calculation (Please no argument about who UT should of played or would have played. It only matters who they did play.)

    Non-Conference – Texas played FAU, UTEP, Rice, and Arkansas. The Hawgs were the best of the bunch, Rice had their best team in decades and still weren’t very good and FAU and UTEP were bad. Florida played a AA school in the Citadel, but also had three bowl teams in Hawaii, Miami, and Florida State. Yes, the UM and FSU teams finished unranked and below the once lofty standards of their bad program, but the Canes somehow won 7 games and FSU won 9 and a bowl. FSU was better than half of the teams Texas played and I am not so sure Arkansas was better than Miami. Advantage Florida.

    Bottom three of the conference – Texas had A&M, Baylor, and CU. UF had Tennessee, Arkansas and a toss between LSU and Vandy. Do we really need to try to compare these teams? You might say they shouldn’t matter, but I still say it goes back to the strength of schedule.

    Rest of the conference – Texas has KU, Ok. St, Mizzou, TT, and OU. OU was a damn good team in 2008 and Texas should have gotten more credit for the win. Outside of that which of the other four are really that good? You can call some of the SEC teams such as LSU and Ga. over-rated, but if you do that how do you defend Mizzou and Ok. State? Both teams got beat bad in conference and the biggest win out of conference was Mizzou over an over-rated Illinois team. Can’t make a case that SC, Vandy, Ktcky, or LSU are better than the Big 12, but Bama isn’t far off OU and Ole Miss and Georgia were better than any other team Texas played in conference in my mind.

    I realize that nothing I say will convince you that Texas didn’t somehow get fucked last year and that is not my point. My point all along is the stones thrown at UF are off base under the current system. My mind you have two choice. Continue to whine and bitch about being cheated and realize as the Stones say “yesterday doesn’t matter if it’s gone” or get it out of your system and get ready to enjoy what could be another great season for the Horns.

39. Ricky said:

    July 14th, 2009 at 6:12 am

    Captain,
    I wasn’t whining and bitching about last season, I was just catching on to the tail end of your attempts to ‘defend’ the fuck job we got last season by suggesting that Florida deserved a spot ahead of us regardless of the OU situation. I agree that Florida earned a spot, but if the other team hadn’t been OU then I think we still had an overall better profile than Florida.

    I must admit I subscribe to the mentality that your schedule quality is determined by the toughest games not whether a 10-win Rice team is better or worse than Hawaii. If Florida had beaten USC or even Virginia Tech in their OOC schedule I would give them credit, but beating last year’s versions of Hawaii, Miami, and FSU just doesn’t merit much consideration in my view.

    You made the suggestion that our schedule was weak compared to Florida’s and I think our schedule was on par and if you take the order they were played into consideration it was much tougher. If we had gotten our deserved position in the Big 12 title game our profile would have improved a little more (though at the time it would have hurt since Alabama was Florida’s best opponent and we would have played a team we had already beaten). I only bring up games we didn’t play because the whole thing is a hypothetical.

    Add to it the fact that we indeed seemed to get screwed by an unwritten rule that really isn’t a rule since it has been broken on several occasions and the screw job is even more complete.

    I agree that throwing UF in is a bit of a red herring in that there was no way we were going to face OU in the championship game, but going back to the period when we were ripped off there was certainly an argument to be made that we were more deserving than Florida. If OU had beaten Florida the conversation would indeed have turned to whether Florida really deserved their spot over us (I say no) and should another unwritten rule be scrapped to allow the championship game to pit two teams from the same conference.

40. Captain Obvious said:

    July 14th, 2009 at 6:36 am

    Ricky,

    Agree with most of what you right, but I think the single biggest difficulty in determining true strength of schedule is inside a conference.

    Anyone who has followed SWC and Big 12 football knows going to Lubbock has been a difficult task regardless of what the Raiders are ranked. Factors like that unfortunately don’t get adequate weighting because that means those voting in the polls need to know more than their little place in world so to speak. Unfortunately that isn’t the case and what gets more merit are rankings and unfortunately those rankings in many cases are no true measure of the quality of an opponent.

    No better examples for the two teams here discussed are Missouri and LSU. LSU started the season ranked in the Top 10 and were #4 when they got beat by 30 by UF in Gainesville. At the time it was an impressive victory, but it also showed the first signs of problems for the team. They proceeded to get beat in 3 of 5 home games which recently has been almost unthinkable and really should have gotten beat by Troy. The losses to Georgia and Bama were written off as tough intra-conference games in the SEC, but that doesn’t explain the Troy game, the ass-kicking by Ole Miss, or the loss at Arkansas.

    Same case can be seen with Missouri. They start the year ranked fairly high and supposedly are validated with a win over an over-rated Illinois team. They roll through two bad non-conference opponents and an over matched Nebraska team before losing to Ok. State. Some discounted that loss as Mizzou looking ahead to Texas, but it like that Florida loss to LSU was the first signs of real problems for that team. They destroyed by Texas in a game far more lopsided than the score, almost lost to Baylor in Waco, and were crushed by OU. Missouri was a good team, but was propped up by being ranked too high at the start of the year, some easy non-conference games, and being in the North. They were within 4 points of going 0-4 against the South.

    What is interesting to me when I go back and look at the way the season played out is that the team who might have had the biggest gripe about not playing in the Title game is USC. The SEC and Big 12 were over rated as conferences last year and because there wasn’t a solid second team in the conference I don’t think they got much credit even with impressive wins over Virginia and Ohio State to start the year.

    All this does to me is re-confirm the need for a true play-off system which I don’t think will happen due to the presidents and the bowl system.

41. Ricky said:

    July 14th, 2009 at 10:56 am

    I agree that a playoff is the only real way to establish a pecking order. Games played in September shouldn’t matter the way they do now, which is why our schedule has gotten weaker. And bowl games really don’t tell us much since no team is playing for the same thing. Did Tech really get blown out by Ole Miss or did they just not get up for a meaningless game? I’ll even defend some of OU’s weak BCS performances, since even I wouldn’t have really gotten up for playing Boise State or West Virginia when other teams were getting to play against traditional powers. (Reminds me of our ill-fated Sugar Bowl against VT, going to New Orleans mattered a lot more than the game!)

    The fact that USCs most important games happened in September doesn’t impress me. I watched a completely different OSU team almost beat us in January than the team that laid an egg against USC in September. And yet everyone determined USC must be better than us because of those results. I would have taken our chances last season against all comers in December and January on a neutral field and I am sure Mack and team felt the same.

    I have truly moved on and am awaiting next season, but I still think in a just world we were the #1 team in the country at the end of November and have yet to hear a counterargument that rings true.

Leave a Reply