BeachBuffs

Shawn Watson not only keeps his foes guessing but he does a wonderfull job of keeping hiw own players guessing...lol

One thing that seems to be in our favor if we make it to the Gold Medal game against Canada is that supposedly the Canadian Olympians are apparently not performing well due to high expectations by their countrymen. In other words Dan Hawkins may be guiding the entire Canadian Olympic team and perhaps if we are lucky he is giving the their hockey team some pointers as well. If and when the time comes all the pressure will be on Canada just like all the pressure was on the Soviets in 1980. Go Team USA!!!!!

Good, Texas stays in the Big 12, Mizzou to the Big 10, we go to the Pac 10 with Utah and you guys get TCU in the south and move OU to the north and everyone is happy.

The Big 8 sold out to UTerus, and basically handed the newly formed Big 12 over to them.

 

I wish NOTHING but ill will upon them.

i wish the city of austin gets nuked...then glassed, then nuked again, they lit on fire, and if anyone surrives treat them like zombies.

Geeshe, someone hand me my piss bomb....

I just thought I would share this, Alabama's backup quarterback going into the BCS title game was also a true freshman in A.J. McCarron, so both school's backup qb's were true freshman.

What is the definition of committment to football execellence though, is it paying your head coach 5 million a year or cancelling a week of your semester to attend bowl games or is it doing your best to quality kids and hoping to educate them?

 

I think it's pretty obvious that it means having a quality team more often than not, having a solid tradition of excellence and reasonable expectations to compete on a yearly basis with your contemporaries. I don't think the majority of college football's top division truly expects these things from their football teams. I think a fair portion of these schools have teams because it's traditional, or because they can make some money from the program to fund their other sports.

 

EDIT - and tack on what Vince is saying as well. Good point, V-Man.

So you advocate a system where maybe 18 schools would have football teams in the BCS and if any one of them had a few bad years they would be eliminated, correct?

Good point, and it also begs the question - should Colorado be a BCS school in the first place?

As opposed to who?

It's not an either/or question, it's a question of Colorado's merit. Is the school going to commit to football excellence or not?

 

If it makes it any clearer, I think the same question should be asked of about half the current BCS schools, and the question of whether they belong in Div 1A should be asked of about 3/4 of the current FBS teams. I'm not just singling CU out in my thought process, although they were the only school brought up in the instant conversation.

 

 

It's not just football, it's all other sports. Aside from skiing and cross country, they are nonexistent in all other sports.

By that logic college football would cease to exist, because if we went off that theory and eliminated schools that had a few bad years then there wouldn't be anyone left to play.

Good point, and it also begs the question - should Colorado be a BCS school in the first place?

As opposed to who?

It's not an either/or question, it's a question of Colorado's merit. Is the school going to commit to football excellence or not?

 

If it makes it any clearer, I think the same question should be asked of about half the current BCS schools, and the question of whether they belong in Div 1A should be asked of about 3/4 of the current FBS teams. I'm not just singling CU out in my thought process, although they were the only school brought up in the instant conversation.

I've been thinking this very thing for the better part of a decade now. Teams like Middle Tennessee State should not be in Div 1 football, they add nothing to it and are patsies for the "Bigger Schools" to schedule for an easy win.

Then who would you all schedule for your non-conference games?

Good point, and it also begs the question - should Colorado be a BCS school in the first place?

As opposed to who?

It's not an either/or question, it's a question of Colorado's merit. Is the school going to commit to football excellence or not?

 

If it makes it any clearer, I think the same question should be asked of about half the current BCS schools, and the question of whether they belong in Div 1A should be asked of about 3/4 of the current FBS teams. I'm not just singling CU out in my thought process, although they were the only school brought up in the instant conversation.

What is the definition of committment to football execellence though, is it paying your head coach 5 million a year or cancelling a week of your semester to attend bowl games or is it doing your best to quality kids and hoping to educate them?

I disagree - that makes no sense. why would the Ant-Hill West have BCS status? Because Colorado joined?

Good point, and it also begs the question - should Colorado be a BCS school in the first place?

As opposed to who?

I disagree - that makes no sense. why would the Ant-Hill West have BCS status? Because Colorado joined? Roflmao

 

 

 

No because their quality of football is as good as the Big East and maybe even the ACC which are both BCS conferences. TCU, BYU, and Utah have proven that their quality of football can compete with anyone and in basketball they have had tremendous recent success.

I posted on the other thread:

Mizzou to the Big 10, CU to the MWC if the conference got BCS status, send OU/OSU to the North and add TCU and Arkansas to the South.

Notre Dame is the only really viable choice for the Big 10. Sure, they can bandy about names like Missouri, Rutgers, Nebraska or whomever, but not one of those teams would make a splash like the Fighting Irish.

 

Notre Dame is a natural fit. They play similar styles of offense and defense to much of the conference, they already play 1/3 of the conference anyway, and they're geographically located in about the ideal spot for another school. Their fan base would assimilate very well and there's already an affinity on both sides (call it love/hate).

 

Yes, Notre Dame has that contract with NBC hanging over their heads, but despite the extension through 2015, I don't think either party would be too busted up about dissolving that contract. Ratings for Notre Dame's games have been dropping steadily over the last few years (with a spike this year, most likely prompted by news of Weis' imminent departure). Or, it also seems likely that an arrangement could be made where the NBC contract is allowed to play out, then drops off after 2015.

 

Notre Dame's status has declined steadily since their last MNC in 1988. They are having a difficult time competing with schools with lower academic qualifications, and they have been largely irrelevant in the past several years. Until last year they hadn't won a bowl game in nine straight tries, an NCAA record.

 

Bottom line is, the team that needs the Big 10 the most is Notre Dame. If they can't come to an agreement or simply have no interest, and the Big 10 expands, Notre Dame's decline will continue indefinitely. There's no way the boosters and army of fans want that.

I agree that Notre Dame is the best fit but I would be stunned if Note Dame pulled the trigger. Mizzou isn't a bad option because of their strength in basketball and if they can sustain some moderate success in football then it is a solid choice because of St. Louis and Kansas City markets.

In my ideal world if Mizzou left would be to shuffle OU and OSU to the North, CU to the MWC if they got BCS status, and add TCU and Arkansas to the South.

The Big 11 is a substandard conference. Nebraska joining would be bad for us and should be avoided, if for no other reason than respect/prestige.

My goodness, how can a conference that features schools like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Iowa be considered sub-standard? In basketball they have OSU, Michigan State and Indiana, if the Big 10 is sub-standard then what does that make us, Conference USA?

How's about this, we drop Colorado, since no one likes them anyway. The Big 10/11 picks up Iowa St. (we really wouldnt miss them either), making them the new Big 12. Then, the current Big 12 turns into the new Big 10, but in order to be the new Big 10, we'd have to have 11 teams, so in order to do that, we get TCU in here, then Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. join the "north" division, making it the "Rest" division, and Texas, Baylor, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and TCU would become the "Texas" division. And all conference championship games would be held at the home field of the "Texas" Division representative. Any thoughts.

 

What if we just elminated everyone and handed you the trophy every year?

Actually, aside from a ridiculous game against ISU, we've already gone ahead and eliminated everyone in the North this year on our own.

 

Next year if we discover an offense that can crack that 106-yard barrier, we'll take the South to the woodshed, too.

 

Fear us, if you dare!

Maybe, but you are also losing the best defensive player in the country, like you said earlier in another thread, Suh is the kind of player that may come along once a decade. No one is expecting Florida to win it all next year minus Tebow, Texas will be rebuilding losing McCoy.

How's about this, we drop Colorado, since no one likes them anyway. The Big 10/11 picks up Iowa St. (we really wouldnt miss them either), making them the new Big 12. Then, the current Big 12 turns into the new Big 10, but in order to be the new Big 10, we'd have to have 11 teams, so in order to do that, we get TCU in here, then Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. join the "north" division, making it the "Rest" division, and Texas, Baylor, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and TCU would become the "Texas" division. And all conference championship games would be held at the home field of the "Texas" Division representative. Any thoughts.

 

What if we just elminated everyone and handed you the trophy every year?

Actually, aside from a ridiculous game against ISU, we've already gone ahead and eliminated everyone in the North this year on our own.

 

Next year if we discover an offense that can crack that 106-yard barrier, we'll take the South to the woodshed, too.

 

Fear us, if you dare!

Maybe, but you are also losing the best defensive player in the country, like you said earlier in another thread, Suh is the kind of player that may come along once a decade. No one is expecting Florida to win it all next year minus Tebow, Texas will be rebuilding losing McCoy.

How's about this, we drop Colorado, since no one likes them anyway. The Big 10/11 picks up Iowa St. (we really wouldnt miss them either), making them the new Big 12. Then, the current Big 12 turns into the new Big 10, but in order to be the new Big 10, we'd have to have 11 teams, so in order to do that, we get TCU in here, then Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. join the "north" division, making it the "Rest" division, and Texas, Baylor, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and TCU would become the "Texas" division. And all conference championship games would be held at the home field of the "Texas" Division representative. Any thoughts.

What if we just elminated everyone and handed you the trophy every year?

Kiper is real high on Gerald McCoy from OU as well, Saturday he said that either Suh or McCoy would go first. I really did not watch a lot of OU football this year, for those serious football afficianados what do you think is the difference between the two?

What's there to feel bad about? He gets to play for a national title, he will probably be drafted by someone, I don't think he will ever really start in the NFL but he will make enough money to live comfortably until he ends up as an assistant back at Texas, I am sure his shoes are just big enough to make it difficult for any of us to fill.

Thx for sharing BeachBuffs

 

1 thing that I'm really curious about is...how did you feel when Shawn Watson left? Happy, relieved, upset, indifferent? I know if Watson got canned, I'd be very happy & relieved. But the Watson defenders always point to the fact that Watson had success at Colorado as 1 of the reasons for why he should be retained.

I give Barnett the credit as opposed to Watson....

Suh got screwed

How so? Having a Heisman on your resume does nothing to enhance your NFL stock, that guy is going to get loaded up on pay next year and just in time before the new labor regulations go into effect. Suh probably woke up this morning and scratched a number into the wall of his NYC hotel for the number of days left until the NFL draft...........

Sorry, I just got back from a cruise.....

I was not a fan of Watson, I thought he wanted to turn us into some passing team when the strength of Colorado football in my eyes has been on the ground. We had a good stretch, probably only second to you all, of turning out a fantastic rushing attack with solid offensive linemen, Watson to me is a finesse kind of guy and we continue that now under Hawkins. I believe to in order to be able to win the Big 12 North you need to be a physical running oriented team, there are just too many games that can be played in our division where the weather can suck.

The Fiesta wanted the matchup between two undefeated teams, I'll watch it.

All this demonstrates is that fans of whatever school they root for really are not much different from one another, we all have our asshats and punks and then we all have some good people that can appreciate a slobberknocker of a game. Yes Colt gets to go to Pasadena but that son of bitch is probably sitting in an ice bath as I write this with nightmares of ever facing Suh in the pros if he can make it that far. Hell of a game last night.

Would you be happy if your daughter brought him home? I would have to say that mine could do a lot worse, hell of a college career for the kid and someone our kids can really look up to, I hate the media drooling but I cannot blame Tebow for it.