Recent Comments
Just a guess, but if he and his partner broke up, that would explain the sudden 180 and return home.
no one is saying innovation isn't important. What we are saying is the difference between consistently winning and being elite comes with a price tag. I will never belittle the 10 win streak we had but it didn't garner a hell of a lot of elite wins did it? And if you want your team to start winning the big games consistently then you need to pony up some serious cash to spend on facilities and recruiting. That's just how it is.
You name Oregon, Baylor and TCU. Oregon you just have to drop off right away. They get more uniforms, have one of (if not) the best football facilities in the country, stadium upgrades, etc, etc... that dedication to Oregon by Knight started before they became innovative and relevant.
Baylor and TCU are good examples of scrappy teams but they are not consistently winning elite games either are they? Combined they only went to 3 BCS level bowls since the year 2000. Baylor lost and TCU split. VT went to 5 and won only 1.
Great. We are all scrappy teams that fight hard to get to the big boy table. Now don't you want to win? Well, that takes money. More than we currently have.
Nah, I'd pass the idea through some people that aren't just learning how to brew.
Football is still football. Coaching is coaching. Either you can develop guys and out coach and out play the other teams or you can't. Baylor, Oregon, Boise, TCU, even Houston and Memphis and Duke to a lesser degree, came from nothing and generated success and it wasn't about money spent. Style, coaching, innovation, are just as if not more important than a bunch of 5 star guys. Miami, Texas, USC, consistently out recruit Oregon, Baylor, and TCU. To say you can't be competitive without a huge budget or a lot of money spent, or a whole team of five star guys is just incorrect. Sure money helps any problems in life but innovation is more important
Rules can be wrong. Rules are arbitrary and can change. Right and wrong don't change regardless of the rulebook.
I thought the primary reason he went to LA was to help his family out that way, and not so much as a professional move. Wonder what the deal is with that? Maybe the UCLA experience made him value his time at VT and doing ACC games even more than he thought. Love to see him back in some capacity, though.
Dude served up enough pancakes for the whole team to eat.
Precisely. In the era of college football being nationally televised and thus making the big, big money schools have had to spend more and more to stay at the top. Anything before the mid 90s just cannot be compared.
That doesn't take away from the achievement, but gone are the days where a regional team can go undefeated and gain media recognition enough to propel them to a non-outright championship or co-champion.
Big money dollars from television has drastically changed the game and how much universities must spend to keep up with the times. You only have to look at how a nationally televised win over Texas propelled VT to relevance towards the title run in '99, national recognition for the first time ever and a decade of 10 win seasons that allowed VT to spend more on football than at anytime ever in history.
I see wins vs. UVA, Liberty, ECU, GT, Duke, Pitt/Syracuse (one of these), and Miami/UNC (one of these) for 7 wins and a Belk Bowl appearance at a minimum. We'll be in every game, so with a little luck we could get 8 wins. This scrappy bunch will make some noise in the Coastal.
Fernley and Eddie could you repost. Your posts went to single width and I couldn't read them.
It's funny how that works. I went to the first two, and although the Texas experience was by far the most memorable for me, first big Bowl game, first time in New Orleans, first pro stadium, I still couldn't think of the one without the other, FSU. Truly, the first time was so exciting, and ultimately satisfying for me, and if we didn't harp on the Michigan game on this site so much, and yeah, I agree, he did, I'd be hard pressed to come up with the other two opponents. This has been an interesting poll, good job setting it up.
Precisely. In the era of college football being nationally televised and thus making the big, big money schools have had to spend more and more to stay at the top. Anything before the mid 90s just cannot be compared.
That doesn't take away from the achievement, but gone are the days where a regional team can go undefeated and gain media recognition enough to propel them to a non-outright championship or co-champion.
Big money dollars from television has drastically changed the game and how much universities must spend to keep up with the times. You only have to look at how a nationally televised win over Texas propelled VT to relevance towards the title run in '99, national recognition for the first time ever and a decade of 10 win seasons that allowed VT to spend more on football than at anytime ever in history.
Not to mention that a Fighting Gobbler is redundant. Gobblers are pugnacious and fearless fighters when the designated time is upon them. The rest of the time, they just eat. At least one legend says the Gobblers thing came from the cafeteria ladies who fed the football players, not the irascible bird, and, well, then there's Hokies...
We did for quite some time.
The only loser mentality here is the one that justifies breaking the rules to win. Measuring success by winning national championships is a foolish endeavor.
Its against the rules
Where is the money going to come from?
I fail to see how a college education, food, ect aren't worth anything.
Maybe if you want to be disingenuous to the kid. We already have one QB in that class in a probably looking to add another so if you had three it would be pretty obvious that one of them is not playing quarterback. And you run the risk of the two who are going to play quarterback getting spooked into not signing by having possibly three quarterbacks signed.
Bobby Wood needs to play central, its how he scored all season in Germany.
What has to be particularly concerning for the Cavaliers is that you could tell LeBron really really really wanted that game and they were only in it for about a quarter. In the past you can count on LeBron winning two games of a seven-game series all by himself but against the Warriors and their three point shooting that's not really the case anymore. Even if LeBron goes for 40 the Warriors have someone who will go for 35.
Committed on the spot to Ole Miss, I'm guessing our coaches didn't want him as a quarterback.
Could we have gone the McMillan route and gave him a qb shot before moving him?
The Cavs' problem is that when they got Kevin Love, they expected him to be like the Love he was in Minnesota. He can't be that because he is being used completely differently by Cleveland than he was in Minnesota. Playing the post in Minnesota, Love could score 25 and pull down 20 rebounds on any given night. Now his game has been reduced to being a stretch four who shoots wing and corner 3s, occasionally trying to put a move on someone to get inside the 3 point line, and then back them down 15 feet. Tristan Thompson is an excellent offensive rebounder, but he is no Love-in-Minnesota type player. If I were Lue, I would take Thompson out of the starting lineup, put Love at center, and start Channing Frye at the 4.
Actually I don't think this is too far off of what will end up happening. Every camp Michigan organizes, Alabama will send a few folks just to stick it to Harbaugh. I'll love seeing it, too.
Meh. That's how I'd describe most national squads. Let's see how they do against squads that aren't obviously more talented than ours. And yeah, Columbia is.