Sour Grapes from Oregon

#476
#476
bleedorange0037 said:
It's funny to me how all these Oregon fans throw out these "past 10 years" stats comparing themselves to other schools. It like the past 10 years is their entire football history (which it pretty much is). Most true "national powers" have been good for SEVERAL decades. It's not all that hard for a team to catch a conference during a down phase and have a good 5-10 year run. If Oregon can continue to sustain their success for a serious length of time then maybe they could be in a discussion like this some day, but not yet.
Click to expand...
Yeah someone needs to notify the gator fans that(according to Oregon fans) football has only been around for 10 years not 20 years like they seem to think.:)
 
#479
#479
Autzen.

OregonAutzenStadium.jpeg


Nough said

Neyland from miles away still looks bigger than right on top of your puny stadium.
 
#482
#482
duckman398686 said:
not saying that ut would have beaten miami, but i do think that ut could have given them a better game than either nebraska or oregon. just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I remember having that discussion with my dad that year. I agree that we were better than either of those teams....possibly Texas as well, who was 3 and lost to Colorado in their conference championship.

But really, I think we both agreed that Oklahoma probably would have been the best team to play Miami that year but they choked up a game late
 
Last edited:
#483
#483
bleedorange0037 said:
It's funny to me how all these Oregon fans throw out these "past 10 years" stats comparing themselves to other schools. It like the past 10 years is their entire football history (which it pretty much is). Most true "national powers" have been good for SEVERAL decades. It's not all that hard for a team to catch a conference during a down phase and have a good 5-10 year run. If Oregon can continue to sustain their success for a serious length of time then maybe they could be in a discussion like this some day, but not yet.
Click to expand...

I see it as the opposite. It's funny to me how fans of "elite" schools, when faced with a competitive program in recent times, have to refer to things that happened when half of the fan base was still playing with Transformers.

I refer to the last 10 years simply because, beyond that, nobody cares but fans from that school. You might as well be arguing about the statistics of general Patten vs. general MacArthur or how the mating habits of seahorses in 1938 affected the turtle population of 1942. Who gives a rip.

droski said:
feldman's completely off base. what does oregon offer people from out of state exactly? superior education. nope. tradition. nope. location. nope.
Click to expand...

That's quite the objective argument there.

droski said:
as for bay area recruits tedford has never lost a bay area recruit he wanted to oregon, so don't expect that to change. and tedford has picked up quite a few nice talents from oregon.
Click to expand...

Well. Tedford must have lost a few marbles since moving to the bay area. That, or you just don't know what you are talking about again. Oregon took 4 of the top ten, including the #1 recruit from the area: http://www.contracostatimes.com/sports/ci_11548721

I hope, for the sake of you not looking completely ridiculous, that Tedford landed at least a few of those undecideds. Or, maybe you intended to just say that Tedford doesn't get any recruits from the bay area but he didn't want them anyway. :)

JZVOL said:
Well UT finished 5-7 hired a new coach and finished recruiting ranked 10th and got the overall number one player.

Oregon finished with it's second best season ever and didn't finish in the top 25 in recruiting.

Interesting.
Click to expand...

The results of previous seasons aren't always reflected in the immediate recruiting class since recruiting for those classes has usually already progressed before that season even started.

I think that UT was helped with their late additions by the idea of potential. In other words, it's easier to sell the sky with a new coaching staff with no earthly examples to examine. If Kiffin and co. don't deliver quickly, next time around could be a swing in the opposite direction.

duckman398686 said:
if thats real, someone seriously needs to make a fail picture out of it
Click to expand...

If anyone thinks that's real, someone needs a new prescription.
 
#484
#484
duckyness said:
Pac-10 has been robbed numerous times out of either a BCS game or a BCS title game.
Click to expand...

No they haven't. ONE Pac10 team had a legit argument against being left out ONCE. USC is the ONLY team that ANYONE in the rest of the country respects. Until someone out there competes with them on a consistent basis then that simple fact won't change. The Pac10 is seen as USC and a bunch of also rans... that's just the way it is.
 
#485
#485
wheaton4prez said:
That's quite the objective argument there.
Click to expand...

Rank the things that have historically made power programs. Tradition, recruiting base, etc. List one thing oregon has. Please? Lots of crappy teams have nice facilities.

wheaton4prez said:
Well. Tedford must have lost a few marbles since moving to the bay area. That, or you just don't know what you are talking about again. Oregon took 4 of the top ten, including the #1 recruit from the area: http://www.contracostatimes.com/sports/ci_11548721

I hope, for the sake of you not looking completely ridiculous, that Tedford landed at least a few of those undecideds. Or, maybe you intended to just say that Tedford doesn't get any recruits from the bay area but he didn't want them anyway. :)
Click to expand...

There are very few legit bay area prospects.
Patterson is the only oregon recruit cal was interested in. Samuels and Williams, two CB from LA and TX, were rated better. Tedford just wasn't going hard after him. They didn't beat Cal for any bay area players in the previous year. Plain and simple, you go where the recruits are. If there were enough strong local prospects to build a class around, I guarantee you, that's what they'd be doing.
 
Last edited:
#486
#486
wheaton4prez said:
I see it as the opposite. It's funny to me how fans of "elite" schools, when faced with a competitive program in recent times, have to refer to things that happened when half of the fan base was still playing with Transformers.

I refer to the last 10 years simply because, beyond that, nobody cares but fans from that school. You might as well be arguing about the statistics of general Patten vs. general MacArthur or how the mating habits of seahorses in 1938 affected the turtle population of 1942. Who gives a rip.
Click to expand...

While I agree that what happened 50 years ago has no real bearing on what happens on the field on Saturday's, teams who have been great for decades will always have that name recognition that goes along with being an all time top program. At their current state, Oregon still doesn't have the same ring as Michigan, Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, or several other schools that have been great for years and years. Those big names will always have a certain ring to them when they go after recruits. That's not to say a school such as Oregon couldn't break into that top tier down the road after a run of sustained greatness, but you guys aren't there yet.
 
#487
#487
Wheaton, your arguments are quite convenient for you. You only list the last 10 years, and you talk about maybes and immeasurables. I think you are trying to convince yourself, as much as you are us, that Oregon is a relevant football program.

Comparing past history in regards to recruiting is the best way to gauge how well you will do in the future. Oregon has never been able to consistently recruit top talent - UT has. The coaches on Oregon's staff are not among the best recruiters out there, and we have Frank Wilson, Ed Orgeron, Lance Thompson...the list goes on and on. These are guys that have proven they can get it done on the recruiting trail and have recognition to back it up.
 
#488
#488
droski said:
Rank the things that have historically made power programs. Tradition, recruiting base, etc. List one thing oregon has. Please? Lots of crappy teams have nice facilities.
Click to expand...

I would say that good coaching is probably the biggest factor in moving programs forward. Oregon has that.

Maybe of equal importance is financial backing. Oregon has that.

Winning big bowl games/NC games. Oregon has nipped at the heels of this twice in recent times and many believe they will again soon.

What are you referring to when you say "tradition"? Playing football for a long time? Having an old rivalry?

droski said:
There are very few legit bay area prospects.
Patterson is the only oregon recruit cal was interested in. Samuels and Williams, two CB from LA and TX, were rated better. Tedford just wasn't going hard after him. They didn't beat Cal for any bay area players in the previous year. Plain and simple, you go where the recruits are. If there were enough strong local prospects to build a class around, I guarantee you, that's what they'd be doing.
Click to expand...

Or, maybe those kids just attended a local Cal game and saw how a pair of fans could complete a checkers game while resting the board on their knees and eating cheese and crackers with their free hands.

According to the article, those Bay Area recruits were some of the best they've ever had. Tedford didn't get any of them. Oregon out-recruited Cal the last 3 years in a row. Please, take a pause and reflect.

bleedorange0037 said:
While I agree that what happened 50 years ago has no real bearing on what happens on the field on Saturday's, teams who have been great for decades will always have that name recognition that goes along with being an all time top program. At their current state, Oregon still doesn't have the same ring as Michigan, Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, or several other schools that have been great for years and years. Those big names will always have a certain ring to them when they go after recruits. That's not to say a school such as Oregon couldn't break into that top tier down the road after a run of sustained greatness, but you guys aren't there yet.
Click to expand...

I think that different schools can have "a ring" for different reasons. Yes, old standards do enjoy a prestige ring. I'll agree with that. But, other schools, like Oregon, can have a ring to them for having a well-respected coach, an innovative offense, a stand-out player like Dennis Dixon. Prestige doesn't hurt. But, it's not the only factor at play.

Sabanocchio said:
Wheaton, your arguments are quite convenient for you. You only list the last 10 years, and you talk about maybes and immeasurables. I think you are trying to convince yourself, as much as you are us, that Oregon is a relevant football program.
Click to expand...

Actually, I agree that considering games even 8-10 years out is bordering on irrelevant. But, I think it is others that are trying to convince me that I should care about the accomplishments of their team from 25 years ago. Sentimentality just doesn't transfer between fans. :)

Sabanocchio said:
Comparing past history in regards to recruiting is the best way to gauge how well you will do in the future. Oregon has never been able to consistently recruit top talent - UT has. The coaches on Oregon's staff are not among the best recruiters out there, and we have Frank Wilson, Ed Orgeron, Lance Thompson...the list goes on and on. These are guys that have proven they can get it done on the recruiting trail and have recognition to back it up.
Click to expand...

Past history does not always mean future results. There are so many factors that go into recruiting results. Team needs. Location. Parents. Etc. To dismiss everything else and give complete credit to "recruiting ability" is inaccurate, imo.

As I said before, I think that UT enjoyed the position of being able to sell potential without a track record as a group. If they don't win on the field soon, their sales pitch is going to have to include explanations.
 
#489
#489
For all this screaming of the past 10 years you seem stuck on, you've garnered 1 more win than UT.

We've had 2 extremely crappy seasons the past few years that resulted in PF being ousted, and you still only garnered 1 more win and tout this stretch as Oregon's best ever. If PF hadn't sucked it up the last few years, you wouldn't even have that argument, as weak as it is.
 
#490
#490
I'm not claiming that anyone should worship what Oregon has done over the last 10 years. Only that UT is really in no position to be talking down about Oregon.
 
#491
#491
wheaton4prez said:
Actually, I agree that considering games even 8-10 years out is bordering on irrelevant. But, I think it is others that are trying to convince me that I should care about the accomplishments of their team from 25 years ago. Sentimentality just doesn't transfer between fans. :)
Click to expand...
Irrelevant? I beg to differ. When comparing one program to another it is very relevant. Like I said, your argument is one of convenience and you are too close to the forest to see the trees. Recruits look at a programs history and traditions. Many have cited that as a reason for choosing UT. Does that mean future success? Depends on what aspects you are looking at as I will address below.

Past history does not always mean future results. There are so many factors that go into recruiting results. Team needs. Location. Parents. Etc. To dismiss everything else and give complete credit to "recruiting ability" is inaccurate, imo.

As I said before, I think that UT enjoyed the position of being able to sell potential without a track record as a group. If they don't win on the field soon, their sales pitch is going to have to include explanations.
Click to expand...
Location. What a key word when considering recruiting. You win games with players. Recruiting the best players in the Nation and the SE especially is key toward becoming (or remaining) an elite program. Knoxville is in a prime location in the middle of the SE which is why we've had so much success recruiting in the past. We have one of the 3 biggest stadiums in the Nation and some of the nicest facilities around -- it's been that way for longer than your 10 year criteria. Past history doesn't guarantee future results, but if most of the things that brought that success in the first place remain constant, it's a likely scenario.

We have recruited well in the past, with this behemoth of a recruiting staff, I highly expect we will continue to do so.
 
#492
#492
Sabanocchio said:
Irrelevant? I beg to differ. When comparing one program to another it is very relevant. Like I said, your argument is one of convenience and you are too close to the forest to see the trees. Recruits look at a programs history and traditions. Many have cited that as a reason for choosing UT. Does that mean future success? Depends on what aspects you are looking at as I will address below.
Click to expand...

We will have to agree to disagree then. Unless you enjoy watching ESPN Classics more than watching ESPN GameDay, the current state of the program and how they do right now, on the field, is more relevant than the past.

All NCAA teams have the same ultimate dream goal. To win an NC game this season. Not to let the most possible people know that they won a lot of games in the past.

Just the opposite, your argument is one of convenience. UT came off a bad season with many of it's current players and is not projected to do well next year, despite having a solid recruiting class. You have a lot to be excited about for down the road. But, Oregon has the edge for the immediate future having just come off a good season with current players and being projected to do well this year.

Conveniently, you want to inflate the importance of past achievements. As if that has any bearing on how much Oregon fans would enjoy a good 2009 season and make up for UT fans having a bad one.

Sabanocchio said:
Location. What a key word when considering recruiting. You win games with players. Recruiting the best players in the Nation and the SE especially is key toward becoming (or remaining) an elite program. Knoxville is in a prime location in the middle of the SE which is why we've had so much success recruiting in the past. We have one of the 3 biggest stadiums in the Nation and some of the nicest facilities around -- it's been that way for longer than your 10 year criteria. Past history doesn't guarantee future results, but if most of the things that brought that success in the first place remain constant, it's a likely scenario.
Click to expand...

It's true that location is an obstacle for Oregon. But, not an insurmountable one. Also, rating recruiting classes is not an exact science. Many players have been under-rated in the past simply because they didn't come from traditional recruiting locations.

I think you sell UT short when you attribute it's past success to location. I think that the success UT had in the past was a product of having great coaching and achieving success on the field. That is what led to more long-lasting success.
 
#493
#493
Wheaton, I understand you wanting to defend Oregon, but do you honestly feel the Oregon football program can match Tennessee's ? Yes or no, don't go look up some bogus statistic.
 
#494
#494
tennessee391 said:
Wheaton, I understand you wanting to defend Oregon, but do you honestly feel the Oregon football program can match Tennessee's ? Yes or no, don't go look up some bogus statistic.
Click to expand...

In what terms?

In terms of past glories? No.

In terms of on the field, right now? Yes. I'm pretty sure that Oregon would be at least a 7 point favorite.
 
#495
#495
while we're talking history

tennessee's all-time record:
776-327-53 (winning percentage: 67%)

oregon's all time record:
556-457-56 (winning percentage: 52%)

conference championships by ut:
16
-13 SEC titles, 2 Southern Conference titles, & 1 SIAA title

conference championships by oregon:
7
- 3 pac-10 titles & 4 pacific coast titles

national championships by ut:
4 ('38, '50, '51, & '98)

(6 if you count the ones in '40 & '67)

national championship by oregon:
0
 
Last edited:
#497
#497
duckman398686 said:
while we're talking history

tennessee's all-time record:
776-327-53 (winning percentage: 67%)

oregon's all time record:
556-457-56 (winning percentage: 52%)

conference championships by ut:
16
-(13 SEC titles), (2 Southern Conference titles), & (1 SIAA title)

conference championships by oregon:
7
- all pac-10

national championships by ut:
4 ('38, '50, '51, & '98)

(6 if you count the ones in '40 & '67)

national championship by oregon:
0
Click to expand...


i'm waiting for this rebuttal. eagerly.
 
#499
#499
Dbake005 said:
i'm waiting for this rebuttal. eagerly.
Click to expand...

lol. That's the irony. I have already responded to this type of old-school flag waving for the last 3 pages in this thread.

I don't care that UT has NC titles from the ancient past. Do you think that you are going to convince me that that is something I should care about?

I, like many people, have some native american ancestry. However, I don't expect people to be jealous of me because Jim Thorpe was an awesome native american football player. I certainly don't expect people to think I am an awesome football player because I have some native american ancestry. That is essentially the argument some of you are attempting to make.

Enjoy your past as a UT fan. Revel in it. But, don't expect anyone else to care.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top