it is kind of embarassing to be the only kid in class to get an F.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...aining-content
it is kind of embarassing to be the only kid in class to get an F.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...aining-content
Something in the B range, possibly an A. Embarrassing for Northeast, but then they are used to it. :icon_wink:
I appreciate the title of this thread having nothing to do with ULM itself... yet still taking a much-deserved swing at them.
I'd give them an A. Nice hire done in a relatively quick time. Hard to not give an A for that.
Let me clarify my previous grade. That is what I thought the writer would give us. I personally think we get an A out of it.
I give it an A+ based on the Mrs. Dykes
I personnally give an A.
However, I think that the writer would give a B based on his reasoning in grading the other hires. His analysis of Mumme's lack of wins in a non AQ conference would be correlated to our situation and the switch from a run game to a spread would probably be two reasons he would give to support his lower score.
Last edited by RGTech98; 01-21-2010 at 08:42 AM.
You know, I read that the other day and was a little confused. Gill was a hot name a year ago, and UB was reaaaaaaaaaly bad before he went there - but he has a losing record at a MAC school. How is that "better" than Dooley's losing record at a WAC school?
How sad is it to only be able to call your best seasons "non-losing?"
Freakin' losers...
How long before our head coach passes their head coach in the "FBS career wins" department? Next season?
The first one was grading the veterans.
ulm got an F
Tenn got an C
(funny how DD in concidered a "veteran" now)
This one is grading up-and-comers
TECH got a B+
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...aining-content
F ULM Lol!!!!!
The word "elite" gets used often when discussing nlulm.