Yep. London>>>Sumlin.Originally Posted by marketdawg
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. London>>>Sumlin.
detltu, there's no point in you and Dawg06 continuing to fight the good fight. Many wish simply to be fans and believe that all things are possible (they are, but just not at all times). Logic and evidence doesn't matter, hence your arguments have no impact. There is no question that if Tech were to win convincingly and dominate against Illinois and Virginia and go undefeated that they would be highly ranked. Likewise, it is simply factual that A&M is notably more physical, and has a much deeper rotation than we. A&M will be favored and with good reason. This game is unnecessary from a competitive standpoint. If it is needed for budgetary reasons, it is only because DR refuses to perform one of his primary responsibilities.
Not trying to start something here.....but if I still had a Dawg in this fight, I would be salivating over aTm in Shreveport!! For me, again, if I had a Dawg in this, It would be a dream matchup.
Brang 'at Texas AM ownta Shreepote an we'll playum and den go to day place nex year- fo da right muny.
I'll buy you a beer and a burger at the tailgate here in Shreveport Ranger:icon_wink:
“Towie Barclay of the Glen, Happy to the maids, But never to the men.”
UVA will be good, but this is a team that had a chance to create a significant power shift in their conference this year and make a statement in their final regular season game at home against a VT team that was not as good as their record looked. UVA laid an egg 38-0. If you cannot do better than that against your most hated rivals at home, then there is a problem. And yes, UVA was pointing to this game all year. London has them on the right track, but I think they are still a couple of years away from being a truly dominate team. They will be tough this year, but beatable.
Last edited by hookdown; 02-07-2012 at 08:44 PM.
You want to bet on whether SD is salivating and thinks this is a dream matchup?
I love A&M in Shreveport just don't like it coupled with UVA and UI all in the same year.
That's the biggest rub.
It is important to keep the Lamar game as an easy warm up game before playing a big boy IMO.
I offered a modified bet in post #357 since A&M looks like a done deal. It's still unlikely that anyone will get paid, but it's at least concievable.
The University is definately in financial trouble and you could make the argument that we need the money so I have a great idea on how to shore up our financial situation. We announce that we are droping the WAC for football to go independent but will maintain a loose scheduling agreement where we play a few teams from the WAC home and home each year. Then we fill out our schedule with MONEY games!!!!!! We could make serious money and we would still have the WAC for non football sports! It's a win for everyone We could play 5-6 money games per year and make maybe 4 million on those games alone. The schedule would be plenty tough so if we ever go undefeated we will likely be in the National championship!!!!! We could transfer money back to the University to help with the budget cuts! That would be sweet.
We had two money games on the schedule already. This game will likely allow us to reduce our general fund transfer and that is a great thing. It's not the same as us needing the game though. We need 1 money game a year with a second game occasionally. If we really need the money we should have taken the payday and played in College station.
You're just being an ass with that.
The only reason DR is getting this game is because of the money. Because Tech needs it. Like I said, I take it you haven't paid attention to the financial situation.
I could be mistaken, but even with the $1-million, I don't believe the university transfer is going to decrease based off some of the other comments on this thread.
And this wouldn't be a "money game" according to other posters on this board. After all, TAMU would be coming here first and then we return instead of us going there and they don't return.
Well assuming that I haven't paid attention to the financial situation is a poor take on the matter. I am just pointing out that if we really need the money then we could do more to get it. We are playing A&M and we aren't getting a home game so I consider it a money game. It's better than a one and done since we get a neutral site game out of the deal, but IMO it's still a money game. A lot of people don't agree with that assessment and I understand that. It's not a home and home and it's not a one and done. It's in between and I think a better alternative to the normal money game.
As far as the general fund transfer, I can't say with certainty that it will decrease, but if it does not decrease the transfer from the University then I don't see how you can make the argument that we "need the money". The new coaches contracts are the only budget increases this year versus last that I know of. Travel for all sports should be down because of the addition of Texas State and UTSA and getting rid of Fresno, Hawaii, and Nevada. The conference payout will decrease further this year so maybe that is what this game is making up for. Why do we need so much more money than we did last year. Maybe donations are expected to be way down, or ticket sales? The budget cuts that affect the University have little effect on Athletics spending unless we have to reduce the general fund transfer. If we are cutting the athletic budget by reducing salaries or staff then we would actually require the money games even less.
asseeninshreveport.com ?Brang 'at Texas AM ownta Shreepote an we'll playum and den go to day place nex year- fo da right muny.
Games gonna happen.. so.. JUST WIN BABY!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
