- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/13/13 at 5:39 am to Stingray
What does Texas A&M's recent football success say about other SEC teams?
In their first year in the SEC, afterr doing nothing ever in the Big12, they come in and, with a freshman QB, only suffer two losses and beat the best team in the conference.
You should have started this lame thread on the rant.
In their first year in the SEC, afterr doing nothing ever in the Big12, they come in and, with a freshman QB, only suffer two losses and beat the best team in the conference.
You should have started this lame thread on the rant.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 6:32 am to Stingray
i think that the pac conference finally installed a salary cap. you are seeing more parity now.
This post was edited on 8/13/13 at 6:33 am
Posted on 8/13/13 at 7:12 am to JombieZombie
quote:
I think Stanford is an above average team that plays solid defense.
GTFO with this shite
Posted on 8/13/13 at 7:17 am to Stingray
To me the big difference is the PAC12 has always been known for their QBs and skill positions. Stanford realizes that success comes from the trenches. They've had an awesome defense the last couple years and have the hogs to grind out games. They're very SEC-like actually.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 8:07 am to ToesOnTheNose213
quote:
What does Texas A&M's recent football success say about other SEC teams?
That the SEC, while a great conference, is overrated. They have more terrible teams than any other league.
Tennessee, Auburn, Arky, Kentucky, Mizzou, even Ole Miss
Posted on 8/13/13 at 9:04 am to Stingray
quote:
What is going on at programs like Washington, UCLA, Cal, and Colorado?
Well, as of now, UCLA looks to be moving the right direction. They fielded a strong football team last season (9-5, notable wins over Nebraska and USC. They lost their last three: Stanford twice and Baylor) and appear to have made a good hire in Jim Mora. They pulled in a top 10 recruiting class last season too if I am not mistaken.
The one that surprises me is Washington. They have a tremendous amount of history and I am a fan of Sarkisian. They are updating their stadium and field competitive teams. They just can't seem to take that jump to the next level. They'll pull the occasional upset and follow it up with an embarrassing loss (2010: Loss to BYU/Win over USC 2012: Win over Stanford/Loss over Washington State). They just seem to be a 7-5 team every single season.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 9:04 am to Bags of Milk
quote:
They can offer a pretty much unparalleled combination of athletics and academics.
This. It has nothing to do with the other schools. If I was a Dylan Moses or Leonard fournette or that kid that went to Ole Miss that starts with an N type recruit and offered by Stanford, I'd go or demand my kid go in second without looking back.
This post was edited on 8/13/13 at 9:07 am
Posted on 8/13/13 at 12:03 pm to Forkbeard3777
quote:
The one that surprises me is Washington. They have a tremendous amount of history and I am a fan of Sarkisian.
Sarkisian is not that good. He's likable, yes, but not a great coach.
And yes Washington used to dominate, but that was back when USC was down big time, and UW was stealing a ton of great players out of California. Now those good players that aren't going to USC are going to Oregon and more recently Stanford.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 12:42 pm to ToesOnTheNose213
Washington had a run in the early 90's - 1991 and 1992 winning the Rose Bowl both years and National Championship one year.
USC was 3-8 in 1991 and 6-5-1 in 1992.
UW won the conference and Rose Bowl in 2000.
USC was 5-7 in 2000.
First Washington took advantage when USC was down...and then mostly Oregon with Washington having one or two years here and there...in USC's absence but neither both at the same time. You can't expect UW to be great when Oregon is flying.
And if USC starts to roll again, those two fade to the backdrop again regardless.
Both Oregon and UW live and die off of Cali recruits. If USC is great and UCLA is half-decent, Oregon and UW stand no chance. They have no independent talent pipeline that just feeds the program.
USC was 3-8 in 1991 and 6-5-1 in 1992.
UW won the conference and Rose Bowl in 2000.
USC was 5-7 in 2000.
First Washington took advantage when USC was down...and then mostly Oregon with Washington having one or two years here and there...in USC's absence but neither both at the same time. You can't expect UW to be great when Oregon is flying.
And if USC starts to roll again, those two fade to the backdrop again regardless.
Both Oregon and UW live and die off of Cali recruits. If USC is great and UCLA is half-decent, Oregon and UW stand no chance. They have no independent talent pipeline that just feeds the program.
This post was edited on 8/13/13 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 8/13/13 at 12:47 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
Both Oregon and UW live and die off of Cali recruits. If USC is great and UCLA is half-decent, Oregon and UW stand no chance. They have no independent talent pipeline that just feeds the program.
Same is true for Colorado, though they used to have a pipeline in the south/Texas as well. I don't think that's the case so much anymore.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 12:55 pm to Vlad The Inhaler
Which is part of the reason Rick was able to quick turnaround success at Washington.
His California recruiting ties from Colorado.
His California recruiting ties from Colorado.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 12:56 pm to Stingray
quote:
Am I underestimating the football program that is Stanford
Yes you are. They get outstanding players that are SMART! They rarely make any mental mistakes.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 12:59 pm to Vlad The Inhaler
To be fair, Colorado no longer has a head coach who will shoot dice in the projects with recruits and then proceed to recruit gangsters--like in the literal sense. Like Crips and Bloods and all that.
People like to call Miami "thug U", but that element was more the bandwagon fans than the players. UC Boulder had straight up legit thugs on those teams in the late 80s and early 90s.
People like to call Miami "thug U", but that element was more the bandwagon fans than the players. UC Boulder had straight up legit thugs on those teams in the late 80s and early 90s.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 1:09 pm to Zamoro10
His time as an assistant at UCLA didn't hurt...
Posted on 8/13/13 at 1:25 pm to Sophandros
quote:
UC Boulder had straight up legit thugs on those teams in the late 80s and early 90s.
1987 and 1988 recruiting classes.
Los Angeles, Compton, Inglewood, Long Beach...and stars Eric Bienemmy, Darian Hagan...etc.
ESPN’s Outside the Lines
Turf Wars: Gangs and Sports
Focused on the recruiting athletes with gang ties in the Los Angeles area by the University of Colorado football team in the mid-1980’s. The assistant coach who conducted the recruiting at that time stated that the football program was looking to recruit inner-city athletes under the belief they would improve the team's performance.
Three top players on the football team during this period were specifically identified in the report as being gang members and the assistant coach stated he knew of their gang membership during the recruiting process.
Translated to 1990 National Title.
This post was edited on 8/13/13 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 8/13/13 at 2:36 pm to ToesOnTheNose213
quote:
Sarkisian is not that good. He's likable, yes, but not a great coach. And yes Washington used to dominate, but that was back when USC was down big time, and UW was stealing a ton of great players out of California. Now those good players that aren't going to USC are going to Oregon and more recently Stanford.
This board has a bizarre infatuation with Sarkisian.
Here is why the PAC has sucked. There just aren't enough good OLINE to go around in the west coast. Oregon has been lucky in that Greatwood develops diamonds. UW, UCLA and the rest have had really shitty oline development. UW's oline could be on par with a good FCS team.
Go watch us in bowl season. UW and UCLA made BSU and Baylor look like elite SEC teams on defense. Okafor went in dry on Oregon State.
Fortunately, UCLA and UW bring back a lot of experience and OS will be much upgraded. I am afraid experience is like putting lipstick on a pig for UW. Mora has recruited very well on the oline vs. New Weasal, so they are up and coming.
This post was edited on 8/13/13 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 8/13/13 at 2:37 pm to oldcharlie8
quote:
i think that the pac conference finally installed a salary cap. you are seeing more parity now.
This.
Posted on 8/13/13 at 2:38 pm to Tiger in NY
This.
huuuhuuuh...(mouthbreathers)
SEC...
huuuhuuuh...(mouthbreathers)
SEC...Posted on 8/13/13 at 2:42 pm to bisonduck
Are you saying that USC has had shitty OLs?
Just trying to clarify "the rest" part of your statement.
Just trying to clarify "the rest" part of your statement.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News