ESPN article on Weis' comments

#26
#26
I just can't get over the cheeseburgers thing. And I am not saying that because I'm a Gator fan. I'm just saying it because its so incredibly .... pointless.
 
#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
I just can't get over the cheeseburgers thing. And I am not saying that because I'm a Gator fan. I'm just saying it because its so incredibly .... pointless.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. Woody Paige made fun of it yesterday on ESPN... good stuff.
 
#28
#28
jblank said:
Sat, Sep 2 at Georgia Tech W 14-10 --
Sat, Sep 9 (19) Penn State W 41-17 --
Sat, Sep 16 (11) Michigan L 21-47 --
Sat, Sep 23 at Michigan State W 40-37 --
Sat, Sep 30 Purdue W 35-21 --
Sat, Oct 7 Stanford W 31-10 --
Sat, Oct 21 UCLA W 20-17 --
Sat, Oct 28 at Navy 12:00 pm --
Sat, Nov 4 North Carolina 2:30 pm --
Sat, Nov 11 at Air Force 4:00 pm --
Sat, Nov 18 Army 2:30 pm --
Sat, Nov 25 at (3) USC 8:00 pm --

Thats a tough schedule to you? Georgia Tech isn't that good, better than average I guess, Penn State is worse than GT, Michigan spanks them, Michigan State is bad, Purdue is weak and feasted on weak competition, Stanford is, well, Stanford, UCLA is down, Navy is weakened due to losing their QB, UNC is horrid, Air Force is decent but they aren't helping their SOS, Army, yeah, ok, and FINALLY, USC, the one tough game for them.
Click to expand...

That Air Force game might be more interesting the ND would like. Not saying that ND will lose, but as we know the option is hard to deal with and I don't think ND has the same defensive speed as the Vols.
 
#29
#29
dobre_shunka said:
That Air Force game might be more interesting the ND would like. Not saying that ND will lose, but as we know the option is hard to deal with and I don't think ND has the same defensive speed as the Vols.
Click to expand...
Yeah, previously winless San Diego State had real problems with that option Saturday.
 
#31
#31
With all that being said, I don't have to express my sentiments of ND football. Just ditto.
 
#32
#32
i just thank its funny because it doesn't really matter unless they win out any way. We didn't hear CPF complaining about Cal being ranked ahead of us. GREAT article!!!
 
#33
#33
Give me a break. When UT scheduled Cal, Cal was playing sub .500 football. UT's stretch of Bama, SC, LSU, Ark, Vandy, and UK does not look tough last year. 1 tough game out of 6. Or, look at UTs schedule since UF: Marshall, Memphis, UGA, Bama, SC. Not exactly a crucible this year.
 
#34
#34
kbutler said:
There is no since arguing this issue.

Tennessee (for that matter most SEC) fans all but universally agree that the ND schedule year-in and year-out lacks competitiveness in the modern age of football. We SEC fans are just bent that way since we believe the search for the best team in America every year just requires a look somewhere bascially in our own back yard. And we have some frustration about beating the crap out of one another every year which the polls don't appreciate nor accomodate.

We also should also agree though that no ND fan will ever, and I mean ever, see it this way. In fact, it will probably just make them angry.
Click to expand...
I agree with the fact it is hard to give a lot of teams credit, cause as Vols we have a real schedule, so I do agree there.
 
#35
#35
therealUT said:
Give me a break. When UT scheduled Cal, Cal was playing sub .500 football. UT's stretch of Bama, SC, LSU, Ark, Vandy, and UK does not look tough last year. 1 tough game out of 6. Or, look at UTs schedule since UF: Marshall, Memphis, UGA, Bama, SC. Not exactly a crucible this year.
Click to expand...

Im with you U If you looked at ND schedule before the season you would say its hard, its just alot of the teams r not playin well
 
#36
#36
finevol said:
Im with you U If you looked at ND schedule before the season you would say its hard, its just alot of the teams r not playin well
Click to expand...


Is that why they were rated as having like the 42nd toughest schedule by one of the ranking sites, at the beginning of the year?

2006 Strength of Schedule

Any strength at the top is weighed down heavily by the crap teams they play in the middle of the schedule.
 
#37
#37
What is a good schedule, really? You don't want to schedule the 11 of the 12 best teams in the country (obviously we will always be one of the 12). That would be ridiculous. My argument is that a team must schedule at least one team...or maybe even two that have a very realy shot of being in the top 10. You schould also schedule 2 or 3 teams that should be in the top 25. That puts 3-5 of the teams you play in the top 25. Beyond that, you're just asking for a loss. It doesn't make sense. You've got to make sure you get your wins as a coach and that your players don't have to be a good team - but still lose 7 or 8 games. My buff is with teams like WV and Louisville who only play each other...and then no one else. It's impossible to tell how good they are. ND doesn't fall in that category to me. But, I still don't like them :p
 
#38
#38
TennTradition said:
What is a good schedule, really? You don't want to schedule the 11 of the 12 best teams in the country (obviously we will always be one of the 12). That would be ridiculous. My argument is that a team must schedule at least one team...or maybe even two that have a very realy shot of being in the top 10. You schould also schedule 2 or 3 teams that should be in the top 25. That puts 3-5 of the teams you play in the top 25. Beyond that, you're just asking for a loss. It doesn't make sense. You've got to make sure you get your wins as a coach and that your players don't have to be a good team - but still lose 7 or 8 games. My buff is with teams like WV and Louisville who only play each other...and then no one else. It's impossible to tell how good they are. ND doesn't fall in that category to me. But, I still don't like them :p
Click to expand...
That is a terrific way to put it. WV hahahahahaha
 
#39
#39
TennTradition said:
What is a good schedule, really? You don't want to schedule the 11 of the 12 best teams in the country (obviously we will always be one of the 12). That would be ridiculous. My argument is that a team must schedule at least one team...or maybe even two that have a very realy shot of being in the top 10. You schould also schedule 2 or 3 teams that should be in the top 25. That puts 3-5 of the teams you play in the top 25. Beyond that, you're just asking for a loss. It doesn't make sense. You've got to make sure you get your wins as a coach and that your players don't have to be a good team - but still lose 7 or 8 games. My buff is with teams like WV and Louisville who only play each other...and then no one else. It's impossible to tell how good they are. ND doesn't fall in that category to me. But, I still don't like them :p
Click to expand...

Good points...but I do want to add a few thoughts. As members of the SEC, and a traditionally and typically stout conference we play very tough conference schedules. Eight SEC games per year. Plus 3-4 non-conf games. Typically, to get love in the media, our non-conf games must also be tough since we will beat each other up and knock each other out. You don't see UT playing FAU or FIU, Ga. Southern, Arky State, and so on. That's a little too weak. I think lesser teams are important to show that in a game you should dominate, you really do it, but I like the tough schedule personally.
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
I just can't get over the cheeseburgers thing. And I am not saying that because I'm a Gator fan. I'm just saying it because its so incredibly .... pointless.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the incredible irony considering who made the comment.
 
#41
#41
lawgator1 said:
I just can't get over the cheeseburgers thing. And I am not saying that because I'm a Gator fan. I'm just saying it because its so incredibly .... pointless.
Click to expand...

I think he was just referring to the Florida players often having the munchies.
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
I just can't get over the cheeseburgers thing. And I am not saying that because I'm a Gator fan. I'm just saying it because its so incredibly .... pointless.
Click to expand...


Ofcourse, thats coming from a guy who looks like he can eat his share of cheeseburgers......
 
#45
#45
Really good article. I had fun reading it. Charlie is going to pay the piper one of these days and it might go down as the largest buyout in NCAA history.
 
#47
#47
therealUT said:
Give me a break. When UT scheduled Cal, Cal was playing sub .500 football. UT's stretch of Bama, SC, LSU, Ark, Vandy, and UK does not look tough last year. 1 tough game out of 6. Or, look at UTs schedule since UF: Marshall, Memphis, UGA, Bama, SC. Not exactly a crucible this year.
Click to expand...

Cal was added after they started to win some games. UT was supposed to play Boston College this season and next but when BC joined the ACC they backed out. Cal was added in their place so that was only a few years ago when Tedford was already there. Gotta give credit to Hamilton for scheduling an upward moving program like Cal.
 
#48
#48
GVF said:
Good points...but I do want to add a few thoughts. As members of the SEC, and a traditionally and typically stout conference we play very tough conference schedules. Eight SEC games per year. Plus 3-4 non-conf games. Typically, to get love in the media, our non-conf games must also be tough since we will beat each other up and knock each other out. You don't see UT playing FAU or FIU, Ga. Southern, Arky State, and so on. That's a little too weak. I think lesser teams are important to show that in a game you should dominate, you really do it, but I like the tough schedule personally.
Click to expand...
I agree, however, can you look at UT's schedule in the past three years and say it is significantly tougher than ND's in the past three years?
  • In 2004, ND played the #14, #33, #24, #21, #13, #25, and #1(season ending AP Poll.)
  • 2004 UT: #26, #2, #7, #2, and #28.
  • 2004: Push
  • 2005 ND: #2, #27, and #4.
  • 2005 UT: #12, #6, #10, #8, and #9.
  • 2005: UT
  • So far in 2006 ND: #21, #34, and #2. Still left, #3.
  • 2006 UT: #12, #9, #26, and #37. Still left, #13 and #14.
  • So far in 2006: Push.
 
#49
#49
dobre_shunka said:
Cal was added after they started to win some games. UT was supposed to play Boston College this season and next but when BC joined the ACC they backed out. Cal was added in their place so that was only a few years ago when Tedford was already there. Gotta give credit to Hamilton for scheduling an upward moving program like Cal.
Click to expand...
You are right. Cal was added after they went 8-6 in the Pac-10 and finished without a vote in the AP Top 25 nor the Coaches Poll. You are right, gotta give credit to Hamilton for scheduling a Top 50 program at the time...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top