Recent Comments
Not to say bag men will go away, just one aspect of what they do will become more out in the open, which helps VT since we are pretty damn far behind some other schools in that department
I deeply resent this.
Michigan
29
2007-2011 (lived in Blacksburg 2006-2011)
Happy Bday!
texas
48 on tuesday
86-92
Perfect!
Horrible call in the Ecuador game, both teams looked bad. Peru is underrated as hell, they could win the group imo.
I agree, but I'd play Wood and Zardes, Wood has much better ball control and ability outside the box, making him more of a threat than Wondo.
The back line sucks no question. I'd play Besler and Cameron in the middle and play Brooks and Chandler out wide if possible. Don't know if Brooks has played out wide but I'm sure he'd be more effective than Yedlin.
Most importantly, we need Johnson in the midfield. He's a top 5 player on this squad and we're wasting him right now. Bradley and Bedoya were the weak links last game, but there's no telling how they do vs CR. Personally I'd sit Bradley to light a fire under his ass for the next game, leave Bedoya in and see what he can get going. Overall what I'd want to see is:
Back: Brooks, Besler, Cameron, Chandler
Mid: Bedoya, Nagbe, Jones, Johnson
Forward: Wood, Zardes
Subs: Dempsey, Zusi, Yedlin
Yeah but we didn't have a system at all. Not a Jurgen hater, but I think it's at least partly his responsibility to define a style of play. Our offensive strategy consisted of badly placed long balls, or Wood/Dempsey dribbling into 5 people. There was no rhythm or organization that you see with a lot of European teams, particularly Germany. I just haven't been sold on Jurgen's ability to use X's and O's and he certainly isn't even close to Joachim Low on this front, probably why Germany canned him and promoted Low.
End the video with some hound licking its own butt
"Collateral" by Tauk would be awesome music for a hype video
Any clips between the two schools in the Peach Bowl after the '09 season would be pretty cool. Maybe a clip of Jason Worilds destroying Tenn's QB?
Texas
61 (today!)
1973 - 1977
The one thing that makes the biggest difference about having money is that you can buy the best coaches. If you can afford a top 5 coach you can consistently get a top 10 program. They prove they can coach by winning against programs with better athletes, so they get hired away by programs with more money. They win there, an then get paid to coach at the highest levels. Now they have a record of success, huge media hype, and a program with history, and recruiting at the highest level gets easier, not harder. That is how money buys championships.
My first thought also.
They are both supposed to represent an unstoppable force. The "Crimson Tide" comes from a radio broadcast when the announcer described a scoring run play as looking like a crimson tide rolling down the field.
I don't know any origin stories for the elephant though.
Ha. This made me think of something. Lane Kiffin likes to talk a lot, but he's been mostly corralled since he started at Alabama. Maybe Saban is going to send him to Harbaugh's camps to start a war of words with the big talker of the sport, Harbaugh. Harbaugh vs. Kiffin throwing shade at each other. Now all we need is Spurrier to be in the mix somehow. Hilarity ensues
I thought this thread was an amber alert in new jersey
I 2nd that
Don't know when the new jerseys will sale. There is a Jarell Eddie jersey on ebay for sale. Size is large. White jersey the one they wore before the current rebrand. It's cheap I think it's 16 dollars. http://m.ebay.com/itm/371642180834
Quality is probably suboptimal, but it's also the only Dell jersey you're gonna find:
http://m.aliexpress.com/item/32512635081.html?tracelog=storedetail2mobil...
The only Tenn highlights you ever see are ones showcasing other SEC teams.
honestly i thought peru-Haiti was the most entertaining game of the day
Sorry, but you're still missing the point. We aren't "throwing out" anyone's championship. What we are saying is in modern college football, the era of national television, the requirement to spend more to keep up is real and gets more pressing every year.
What you spent in 1980 to win a championship pales in comparison to what you need to spend to win a championship these days. The trend is distinctly upwards.
And your example of Clemson, which has non-elite revenues, still must outspend on recruiting and asst coaching salaries more than most to get the recent success they have. Not to mention the recent commitment of $106 million on athletic facilities upgrades. Ignoring that fact won't prove your point. Similarly, ignoring the fact that the trend of spending since whenever to now has been staggeringly more, and that in the modern age (bcs and playoffs) that trend has gotten even steeper, also won't prove your point.
So while I agree teams can be successful while having middle of the pack earnings and spending, they have yet to prove you can win championships and consistently (year in, year out) be in contention to play in the more elite bowls and win. What Hokiefireman is saying is we need more commitments/donations to allow our team greater spending power in order to get more success. He is not wrong.
But, recognize, that we all agree with you about innovation. More money doesn't automatically equate to success. Texas is the perfect example. I dare say that more money wouldn't have improved our own success the last few years either. Innovation is a key to winning.
Innovation and money are the keys to championships.
Ecuador-Brazil was fun, but taking away that goal was a garbage call.
Michigan
23
2010-2014
But I remember all of them except Texas.