Recent Comments

I think a much more important question is "can the alleged discrimination actually be proven?" But to answer your question, yes, discrimination based on attractiveness is okay.

Although the article did have a humoristic (is that a word??) tone to it so I guess we can laugh at it.

Everything at EDSBS is intended to be humorous. That's their schtick. I don't think anything they write there is intended to be taken seriously. That said, I think it's a darn fine site and it's the only one I visit as frequently as I do TKP. I don't think there's any better college football feature out there than their regular Hatin' Ass Spurrier posts during the season.

I seem to remember Kyle jumping that same gap 3 plays in a row. It was remarkable to watch the O-line make the same coverage mistake, and finally he pulled off that strip.

I'd be great if we could find another Fuller-esque family to drool over.

The problem with running as many plays as possible is that if you don't succeed and gain >1 first down, you have put your defense back on the field with a very small amount of game clock (and actual clock) passed. Oregon has had reasonably good defensive players and coaches while they have been running the Chip Kelly blur offense, but due to the nature of their super-fast offense, they gave up lots of points.

If there is any concern with defensive depth, especially in a key position (MIKE!), putting a defense back on the field quickly is a recipe for sudden, yet inevitable disaster.

Also, there isn't a great deal of data to support the idea that VT has a below average pace of play, or that the pace of play causes problems for the offense. In 2014, VT was ranked 75 out of 128 teams in pace of play (SBN Pace of Play Study) Some very good teams were below VT and some very good teams were above VT.

Personally, I think the Oregon blur and systems like it are incredibly fun to watch, but would translate incredibly poorly to a VT team, especially one that is constructed like the current iteration.

Perhaps.

But my memory is more that he wasn't the same, not the way he was used. He got dinged up right after the Bama game, sort of recovered for the Marshall game, and then got dinged up again. Didn't really get remotely healthy until the last 3 games of the year and then broke the leg.

He really only played about 4.5 or 5 healthy games -- and had almost 500 yards rushing in those 5 games.

You're comparing a public university with an undergrad population of 37,000 vs a private university with a population of an undergrad population of 5,000. Indiana has exponentially more undergrad and alumni support.

And yet Indiana could not give a rats ass about college football. The only times they fill that place are when Michigan, Penn St, and Ohio St come to town, because of the opponents fans. Both of those jobs are terrible, and set up for failure.

2 of those 3 years include Tyrod's senior year, and Logan's awesome year when he was surrounded by upperclassmen talent. What happened when that talent aged out? Who was there to step up?

That's why Stiney & Co are gone, and that's why Loeffler was brought in. Its also the single main reason why our offense has been as bad as it has been since then.

Stop trying to make conclusions where none exist

You're comparing a public university with an undergrad population of 37,000 vs a private university with a population of an undergrad population of 5,000. Indiana has exponentially more undergrad and alumni support.

They may have the same level of football apathy, but its an apples/oranges comparison.

Indiana's struggles with college football are those similar to schools like Kansas and Colorado - a geographical disadvantage to where the best high school football players are located.
The right coach could make Indiana a force in the Big 10 year in - year out.

Wake is so unique in it's position in a power 5 football conference being private/tough academics/low student population.

There was a recent ESPN writer survey that named Wake the worst major college football job
http://insider.espn.go.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/12367998/...

When you have a very good defense you should be trying to run as many plays as humanly possible during a game

Strange statement being that most coaches of teams with the consistently top rated defenses seem to run ball control offenses. While I agree we should improve our offense, be more unpredictable and occasionally run hurry up, getting snaps off quickly only means your defense is on the field quicker and more often and will wear down (see us vs bama 09).

Statistics from 4 years and 3 different schools will do that to you. You could argue the talent difference from Stinespring's worst year (2008 with Tyrod, Ryan Williams, Darren Evans, etc) to what Loeffler has had. These are 2 completely different situations and it's hard to compare them. This will be the year to find out for sure.

If TCU had beaten Baylor in a big12 championship, they would've gotten in even without a stomping. Remember, prior to championship week, it was #3 TCU, #4FSU, #5 OSU, #6 Baylor and #13 Wisc. Even with a close win over Baylor, TCU would've had to drop 2 spots after beating the #6 team in the country for OSU to make it in, as I don't think the voters would leave out the only undefeated team in a p5 conference with the reigning Heisman winner in FSU out.

With the current timeline, speculation, and probability on Beamer's endgame, Foster going anywhere else now would be stupid. Unless he knew he had no shot at the HC gig.

It would be completely irrational to go to Indiana and struggle like that, when you could wait a couple of years or less and take over at VT.

The main problems with our offense have been consistent for a while under both Stiney and Loeffler. PACE and PREDICTABILITY. Our formation variation is garbage and a couch-coach can make pre-snap run/pass reads, and our lack of speed/precision from play-to-play hurts us. For the past 5+ years we've had to watch our QBs walk to the line, spend 5 seconds reading the defense, everyone stands up and looks to the sidelines, another 5 seconds getting re-set, and then you snap the ball just to reveal you spent all that time concocting a poopy play (and the defense had all day to adjust). There was some hope last year that our PACE was getting better, but it was still inconsistent.

When you have a very good defense you should be trying to run as many plays as humanly possible during a game. Our defense will win more than they lose, so you'll have more opportunities than most teams to get the ball back which should allow you to take some risks on offense (which we rarely do).

I appreciate that you're using numbers to back up your argument but this is cherry picking a bit. For one, the sample sizes are different and with the exception of Auburn for the one year Loeffler was there (without a real QB, mind you) Loeffler has had considerably less talent to work with compared to Stinespring. This is as close to an apples and oranges comparison that you'll find.

I'm not a Loeffler apologist but I'm smart enough to realize that he was coming into a pretty ugly situation when he took the VT OC job. We all knew from the beginning that whoever took that job would need at least 3 years to rebuild. I'll agree that the jury is still out on him but I've been patiently giving him the time he deserves. VTs offense was run so hard into the ground before he arrived that it was absolutely ridiculous to expect significant improvement over night. If we don't improve as an offense this season then we should really start asking the tough questions. But based on what he had to work with, I'll give him benefit of the doubt for one more off season. You can't deny he was dealt a pretty awful hand.

Pages