|
|
Without the A&M game, we would have needed Illinois or Virginia to end up in the top 25 to validate one of our other OCC wins to sniff the BCS. Otherwise, I agree with RC. We may have been ranked top 16 in the polls if we had run the table, but the computer rankings would have been to low to overcome.
After A&M wins the SEC that loss will help a lot.
And they say some of us are punchy.....Originally Posted by RougeDawg
If we hadn't joined the WAC in 2001, we could have joined the sunbelt and competed with ulm and ull. I'd rather play some tough teams now and improve than playing cupcakes. No way would we get in a BCS bowl by playing an easy schedule.
From what I saw, we are a competent defense away from being a legit top 15 team. Sadly, we lose a QB who is surpassing everyone's expectations and a WR that will be playing on Sundays. Let's hope our schedule allows us to continue racking up the wins next year. I feel confident that we'll start next season a LOT closer to the top 25 than we started this season.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
If we didn't play A&M then some of us wouldn't have witnessed one of the greatest football games of our short lives!
........as well as some of us wouldn't have witnessed one of the greatest football games of our LONG lives! What a ball game!!
lol!
AMEN!!!
Without the A&M game Louisiana Tech is 6-0 and still receiving enormous national press with "are they worthy" talking heads debate because of it, not because we played a game against TX a$m.
While I would have been perfectly content with keeping the original schedule, my biggest problem with scheduling A&M is that they are....A&M. I know the reasons behind scheduling them (willing to come to S'port, supposed to be a down year for them, new coach, new system, availability, etc.), but trading an almost certain win for a school that has beaten us like a drum every time we play, just does not seem like a good trade. I wonder what other choices were available, if any, at the time we made this deal.
No guarantees that we get in a BCS bowl going 12-0 with Lamar on the schedule, but at least we are still in the discussion until the first of December.
But it is all water under the bridge now. The best we can hope for is to win out and hope there are a ton of upsets with the top 25 for the rest of the season.
Because DR never put athletics (or any area of the university) on sound fiscal footing, the pressure is always present to accept games that can contibute to the athletic budget. In short, we needed the money. The saggie game presented the best opportunity that we've had to play a virtually home "money" game.
If money wasn't an issue, we might or might not have dropped Lamar. But imo, and it is clear to me and supported by RealityCheck, that the voters would not have allowed us to play in a BCS bowl having only played three teams with a winning record (San Jose, Houston, USt) and none in even the top 50.
And more, you can't put a price on the value of DEMONSTRATING that we belong in any Top 25 discussion, and any mid-to-upper bowl discussion.
Agree with LFR. Also, I'm a bit annoyed with all of the talk that we should have taken the easy win and been undefeated than going up against A&M. I realize money was a large contributing factor, but I feel like our OOC opponents were selected to give us the best chance of winning and proving to the nation that what we have is a solid, great football team. I even had TMR (matthew berry) tweeting me that we had a very good team, and I know he's now big on the General.
I can't buy into this whole "we should have played the easy win" game. What the hell kind of message is that? We're too scared of challenging ourselves, of proving ourselves? I would put this team up against ANYBODY
...ANYBODY and expect to win. Our team is that good, and I think it sends a $%^& message to say "oh, we're proud of you guys, but we don't really think you can match up against a tough opponent, so we'll take an easy schedule to hopefully get to a bowl that may or may not work out". I watched the A&M game and suffered through every ignorant "oh, this is SEC football...that is SEC speed" to later on where the commentators were actually saying "wow, typically, you see the SEC lineman punishing others, but this Tech offensive line is having their way with an SEC D-line." We earned respect with this game that we wouldn't have gotten with Lamar.
Sorry for the two posts...last time I drink gatorade/everclear during a intramural volleyball game. ugh.
If we'd kept Lamar, we probably go 12-0 and still end up snubbed because 95% of the county (voters included) see nothing but box scores against JV teams. Instead we got a much-hyped game against a good team that started late and didn't get exciting until most of the other games in the county were over. Did it cost us a perfect season? Yes. Did it kill our BCS chances? Probably. Did it gain us a ton of credibility and national exposure? You bet your Johnny's pizza lovin' ass it did!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
