Vol_Bengal Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 [quote name='Ben' post='738589' date='Jan 9 2009, 10:18 AM']I dont think i necessarily dislike tim tebow personally, but i hate all the tebow worship. I swear i heard the announcers choking on his cum at one point last night. [b] Plus, we have to listen to all the SEC blowhards for the next 365 days[/b][/quote] well... seeing as I'm an "SEC blowhard" I guess I'll listen to myself then! Win 3 National Championships in a row, and 5 in 11 years and it is awfully difficult to blame us... [quote name='ThurmanMunster' post='738665' date='Jan 9 2009, 02:29 PM']the tebow blowing pissed me off. the worst part of the whole game was the fact that they act like he is so great. he isnt a QB. he is a fucking RB that just happens to throw it every once in a while to a guy who got open cuz the D feared the run. that corner was right. he would be the 4th/5th best QB in the Big 12. all around player, he is good for an NCAA game but that shit wouldnt work for 5 plays in the NFL.[/quote] I disagree... again, for whatever reason I don't like the guy - I think it is because of the hanging off his nuts that goes on... but to say he can't throw isn't even close to accurate. He is a good quarterback - and can throw a decent ball. I'm not saying he's a freakin stud... but to say he'd be 4th or 5th best qb in the Big 12 is asinine... last I checked Sam Bradford accounted for 14 last night... Tebow - 24. I don't like him but don't tell me he's an average qb, which by saying 4th / 5th best qb in the Big 12 is what you're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Tory Go! Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 [quote name='Inigo Montoya' post='738600' date='Jan 9 2009, 10:01 AM']I was glad Florida won. IMO, Oklahoma should not have gotten into the title game to begin with. They lost head-to-head against Texas on a neutral field and most of the luster was taken off their blowout win against Texas Tech when the Red Raiders were beaten by the fourth-best SEC team. [b]I will never understand why what two teams did against a common opponent mattered more than what happened when they faced each other head to head.[/b] Never. Oklahoma was only seriously tested twice this year and they lost both times. USC and Utah have a right to be pissed.[/quote] This was never their rationale. The 3 teams - Texas, Oklahoma, and TTech - ended up with the same conference records, and had each beat the team which beat them. So, if they went with head-to-head results, Texas would want to go since they beat Oklahoma. But Tech had the same record and beat Texas head-to-head! And then Tech would want to go. But Oklahoma had the same record and beat Tech! And when Oklahoma wanted to go, Texas got in a tizz, because they beat Oklahoma. So instead, they went with the team with the best resume up to that point, which was Oklahoma. It was not a case of what they did against a common opponent mattering more than head to head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 [quote name='Go Tory Go!' post='738812' date='Jan 9 2009, 10:53 PM']This was never their rationale. The 3 teams - Texas, Oklahoma, and TTech - ended up with the same conference records, and had each beat the team which beat them. So, if they went with head-to-head results, Texas would want to go since they beat Oklahoma. But Tech had the same record and beat Texas head-to-head! And then Tech would want to go. But Oklahoma had the same record and beat Tech! And when Oklahoma wanted to go, Texas got in a tizz, because they beat Oklahoma. So instead, they went with the team with the best resume up to that point, which was Oklahoma. It was not a case of what they did against a common opponent mattering more than head to head.[/quote] I call BS. Texas beat Oklahoma on a neutral field. Texas was then the higher ranked team right up until the end when the Sooners past them, yet Texas was still winning. They lost in the last seconds AT Texas Tech. Oklahoma destroyed Texas Tech AT Oklahoma. Don`t tell me the season is the "playoff", but when a team beats another, it doesn`t matter. And we will just go with who has a better "resume". They just took how they played against Texas Tech and made that they decider. Because Texas had a pretty good resume too. That is like saying that the Patriots had the better resume, but even though Miami won the division, the Patriots should go to the Playoffs. That's BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo Montoya Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 [quote name='Go Tory Go!' post='738812' date='Jan 9 2009, 11:53 PM']This was never their rationale. The 3 teams - Texas, Oklahoma, and TTech - ended up with the same conference records, and had each beat the team which beat them. So, if they went with head-to-head results, Texas would want to go since they beat Oklahoma. But Tech had the same record and beat Texas head-to-head! And then Tech would want to go. But Oklahoma had the same record and beat Tech! And when Oklahoma wanted to go, Texas got in a tizz, because they beat Oklahoma. So instead, they went with the team with the best resume up to that point, which was Oklahoma. It was not a case of what they did against a common opponent mattering more than head to head.[/quote] Believe me, I've heard Oklahoma's argument ad nauseum. As "Big Game" Bob Stoops said multiple times, they beat the #2 team in the country by 40 points (Texas Tech) and the #11 team in the country (Oklahoma State) by 20 points in consecutive weeks. Regardless of the three way tie, Texas Tech eliminated themselves by getting blown out by Oklahoma. That's how both the BCS and the AP voters felt by dropping Texas Tech significantly after they lost that game. Accordingly, that made things a two way race between Texas and Oklahoma. IMO, Texas won the head to head and should have played in the Big 12 championship. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 [quote name='Inigo Montoya' post='738891' date='Jan 10 2009, 10:27 AM']Believe me, I've heard Oklahoma's argument ad nauseum. As "Big Game" Bob Stoops said multiple times, they beat the #2 team in the country by 40 points (Texas Tech) and the #11 team in the country (Oklahoma State) by 20 points in consecutive weeks. Regardless of the three way tie, Texas Tech eliminated themselves by getting blown out by Oklahoma. That's how both the BCS and the AP voters felt by dropping Texas Tech significantly after they lost that game. Accordingly, that made things a two way race between Texas and Oklahoma. IMO, Texas won the head to head and should have played in the Big 12 championship. It's that simple.[/quote] Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiliMVP Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Tebow is not a good quarterback prospect at all. He has a pretty strong arm, but he has a weird ass long winding throwing motion. He has never taken a snap under center, and has no footwork whatsoever required for a drop back passer. He plays in an extremely gimmicky offense and only throws deep once a game. He dinks the ball off and the receiver takes it 50 yards. He's not asked to read the defense and when his first target is not open he takes off and runs. It's not all his fault though, Meyer's offensive system is the major problem. Tebow could have been a legit QB prospect if he went to a team that ran a pro style offense and taught the mechanics of the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Tory Go! Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 [quote name='Inigo Montoya' post='738891' date='Jan 10 2009, 11:27 AM']Believe me, I've heard Oklahoma's argument ad nauseum. As "Big Game" Bob Stoops said multiple times, they beat the #2 team in the country by 40 points (Texas Tech) and the #11 team in the country (Oklahoma State) by 20 points in consecutive weeks. Regardless of the three way tie, Texas Tech eliminated themselves by getting blown out by Oklahoma. That's how both the BCS and the AP voters felt by dropping Texas Tech significantly after they lost that game. Accordingly, that made things a two way race between Texas and Oklahoma. IMO, Texas won the head to head and should have played in the Big 12 championship. It's that simple.[/quote] Unfortunately, Texas Tech probably wouldn't have liked being arbitrarily dismissed from the tie by the conference that represents them simply because they lost big. You reference the BCS and AP rankings as grounds for making this dismissal, yet when they were used to select the stronger team, you cry foul. Anyway, if you can't tolerate hilariously-arbitrary and political decisions in your sports, I don't know how you can be any kind of observer of NCAA football. Especially considering how easily avoidable this BS is, and how obviously corrupt the system has become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo Montoya Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 [quote name='Go Tory Go!' post='738933' date='Jan 10 2009, 01:56 PM']Unfortunately, Texas Tech probably wouldn't have liked being arbitrarily dismissed from the tie by the conference that represents them simply because they lost big. You reference the BCS and AP rankings as grounds for making this dismissal, yet when they were used to select the stronger team, you cry foul. Anyway, if you can't tolerate hilariously-arbitrary and political decisions in your sports, I don't know how you can be any kind of observer of NCAA football. Especially considering how easily avoidable this BS is, and how obviously corrupt the system has become.[/quote] How can you call Oklahoma the stronger team when they lost on a neutral field to Texas? Is it because they played a supposedly stronger schedule? Is it because they ran up the score at every possible chance? The same AP voters and BCS computers that completely dropped Texas Tech out of the picture after they were routed by Oklahoma allowed Oklahoma to pass Texas primarily on late season style points as opposed to what happened when the two teams played. That is exactly my problem with this system. Oklahoma should have NEVER been able to pass Texas in the BCS standings unless they had a better record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 [quote name='Inigo Montoya' post='738891' date='Jan 10 2009, 12:27 PM']Believe me, I've heard Oklahoma's argument ad nauseum. As "Big Game" Bob Stoops said multiple times, they beat the #2 team in the country by 40 points (Texas Tech) and the #11 team in the country (Oklahoma State) by 20 points in consecutive weeks. Regardless of the three way tie, Texas Tech eliminated themselves by getting blown out by Oklahoma. That's how both the BCS and the AP voters felt by dropping Texas Tech significantly after they lost that game. Accordingly, that made things a two way race between Texas and Oklahoma. [b]IMO, Texas won the head to head and should have played in the Big 12 championship. It's that simple.[/b][/quote] While I agree with you that Texas was jobbed and should have been playing for the Big 12 championship and the potential national championship... the fact that Texas Tech lost by 40 is irrelevant. In Big 12 standings it is no different than losing by 1. It left Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech all with 1 loss and it was round robin as to who beat who. The Big 12 handles their tiebreaker like the SEC and use the highest rated team in the BCS to determine who wins the division. I don't like the fact they do it that way - but follow the money. By placing their conferences highest rated BCS team in the championship game they have a better chance at getting that team into the national championship which means more money to the conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Tory Go! Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 [quote name='Inigo Montoya' post='738937' date='Jan 10 2009, 02:14 PM']How can you call Oklahoma the stronger team when they lost on a neutral field to Texas? Is it because they played a supposedly stronger schedule? Is it because they ran up the score at every possible chance? The same AP voters and BCS computers that completely dropped Texas Tech out of the picture after they were routed by Oklahoma allowed Oklahoma to pass Texas primarily on late season style points as opposed to what happened when the two teams played. That is exactly my problem with this system. Oklahoma should have NEVER been able to pass Texas in the BCS standings unless they had a better record.[/quote] I do hate to belabor the point, but every claim Texas had over Oklahoma, Texas Tech had over them. For some reason, you're willing to drop Texas Tech from the argument because they were ranked lower, but you were vehemently opposed to the same rankings being used to put Oklahoma over Texas. Your methodology is inconsistent, and given the choice between an illogical method and one with tenuous but consistent logic, the conference made the right decision. As Vol noted, their method produced the team which was not only deemed superior by most observers (i.e. the polls), but the team most likely to be chosen for the title game, giving them the $ from 2 BCS games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 [quote name='Go Tory Go!' post='738986' date='Jan 10 2009, 08:01 PM']I do hate to belabor the point,[b] but every claim Texas had over Oklahoma, Texas Tech had over them. [/b] For some reason, you're willing to drop Texas Tech from the argument because they were ranked lower, but you were vehemently opposed to the same rankings being used to put Oklahoma over Texas. Your methodology is inconsistent, and given the choice between an illogical method and one with tenuous but consistent logic, the conference made the right decision. As Vol noted, their method produced the team which was not only deemed superior by most observers (i.e. the polls), but the team most likely to be chosen for the title game, giving them the $ from 2 BCS games.[/quote] Technically, not. Texas beat Oklahoma, by 10, on a neutral field... Texas lost, AT Texas Tech on a last second play... Texas Tech lost, AT Oklahoma by 40+ points... record wise, yes, quality of loss, not even close. But, again, it gets back to following the money. The conference wants to bring in as much money as they can so they're going to do what they did. The SEC does it the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo Montoya Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='739002' date='Jan 10 2009, 07:55 PM']Technically, not. Texas beat Oklahoma, by 10, on a neutral field... Texas lost, AT Texas Tech on a last second play... Texas Tech lost, AT Oklahoma by 40+ points... record wise, yes, quality of loss, not even close. But, again, it gets back to following the money. The conference wants to bring in as much money as they can so they're going to do what they did. The SEC does it the same way.[/quote] The problem I keep coming back to is this. In order to justify ignoring Texas' head to head victory over Oklahoma, you have to bring Texas Tech into the argument, even though nobody would dare put them in front of Oklahoma. It's amazing to me that the AP voters and the BCS allowed Oklahoma to jump Texas based on subjective style points and a perceived more difficult schedule when you can easily make the same subjective argument about the quality of each team's loss to support Texas' case. Texas was passed by Oklahoma without losing a game and Texas Tech was knocked out of it for getting blown out. I see no consistency at all in that logic. If the voters wanted to be consistent, either Texas Tech shouldn't have dropped as much as they did or Texas shouldn't have lost out on style points to a team they defeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThurmanMunster Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 [quote name='akiliMVP' post='738918' date='Jan 10 2009, 01:20 PM']Tebow is not a good quarterback prospect at all. He has a pretty strong arm, but he has a weird ass long winding throwing motion. He has never taken a snap under center, and has no footwork whatsoever required for a drop back passer. He plays in an extremely gimmicky offense and only throws deep once a game. He dinks the ball off and the receiver takes it 50 yards. He's not asked to read the defense and when his first target is not open he takes off and runs. It's not all his fault though, Meyer's offensive system is the major problem. Tebow could have been a legit QB prospect if he went to a team that ran a pro style offense and taught the mechanics of the position.[/quote] agreed 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo Montoya Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 [quote name='akiliMVP' post='738918' date='Jan 10 2009, 01:20 PM']Tebow is not a good quarterback prospect at all. He has a pretty strong arm, but he has a weird ass long winding throwing motion. He has never taken a snap under center, and has no footwork whatsoever required for a drop back passer. He plays in an extremely gimmicky offense and only throws deep once a game. He dinks the ball off and the receiver takes it 50 yards. He's not asked to read the defense and when his first target is not open he takes off and runs. It's not all his fault though, Meyer's offensive system is the major problem. Tebow could have been a legit QB prospect if he went to a team that ran a pro style offense and taught the mechanics of the position.[/quote] I agree with nearly all of this, but do you think there is any chance that Tebow could be another Donovan McNabb, who played primarily in an option offense in college at Syracuse? Obviously, he'll have to make major changes mechanically but as you pointed out, Tebow does possess a strong arm which I believe gives him a chance if he has some time to develop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 [quote name='akiliMVP' post='738918' date='Jan 10 2009, 01:20 PM']Tebow is not a good quarterback prospect at all. He has a pretty strong arm, but he has a weird ass long winding throwing motion. He has never taken a snap under center, and has no footwork whatsoever required for a drop back passer. He plays in an extremely gimmicky offense and only throws deep once a game. He dinks the ball off and the receiver takes it 50 yards. He's not asked to read the defense and when his first target is not open he takes off and runs. It's not all his fault though, Meyer's offensive system is the major problem. Tebow could have been a legit QB prospect if he went to a team that ran a pro style offense and taught the mechanics of the position.[/quote] agree, though I still think he'll have a successful career in the NFL as a QB/RB/TE type player. Will never be stuck in one position, but will be given the opportunity to make plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.