SB Nation User Blog: Pablo M

Good Bye to the Double T Nation

Pablo M — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:04:51 -0000

It seems that I am not welcome anymore here at DoubleT Nation. Seth has made it very clear that he is looking for any reason no matter how microscopic to ban me. So I told him to go ahead and Ban Me. I speak the truth no matter if he does not like it. Yes its his site and he can do what he wants on HIS site.

But its sad that Seth can not accept person criticism nor admit when he is wrong. The Reason. I told Seth he needed to calm down after he wrongly accused me in an email. Then we traded email where I told my position and he then said he made a mistake. The issue Seth accused me of calling Potts a Mental Midget. One other is that Seth demanded proof of some posts he made. Unfortunately, Its not possible for me to pull those back up because Those posts are not found anymore. Wether those post were removed for memory issues or not IS UNIMPORTANT.

So if you want to know what it is that demands that I be Double T Nations #1 Enemy take a look at my previous posts and see if it deserves it.

I tried to make peace with Seth and all I got was threats.

So Good bye.

And Seth, Leave this up or you will prove once again how petty you really are.

PM

PS: Sometimes, Hard Love is the medicine to correct problems when no other avenue is available.

What is my motivation?

Pablo M — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:17:44 -0000

I have posted several times and I have seen everyone here from Seth down who are missing what my motivation is. My motivation is seeing the program improve every year and to eventually get to a National Title. Some think that I am hating on Potts, or the offense or the team in general.

Far from the truth. I respect Potts. Love his toughness. But I got to say, I am disappointed in his leadership skills and mental awareness on the field. Leach has given the golden seal of approval for Potts to be the starter this season. Thus that is who will lead our team. So that means I know that Potts will start every game this season bar injury.

So why did I call for Potts to be benched you may ask? How many remember the game that Harrell was benched because he did not get his head in the game and was making these same kind of errors Potts is making. Thus Benching is not Replacing. Thus having him sit a quarter or two will wake him up and perhaps snap some proper fire for the offense. So I am not calling for a brand new QB to be new starter. Though if one comes in and plays lights out and puts up 70 points then what?? I may have to reconsider the idea of Benching as a replacement. But that is not my motivation.

I am very much a hardcore Texas Tech Supporter, Texas Tech Graduate, Booster, Red Raider Club Member, Donor to the University worth major $. I speak simply for one purpose. Have Texas Tech as a Tier 1 university with the nations top programs including football which I love.

So everything I say is for the improvement of the program. I am not some fair weather fan. I am very consistent in my views. Those who have been around long enough will see that I have said these same things year in and year out. I talk about the big picture.

One thing everyone can take to the bank! I will never throw the players or team under the bus. Potts is the starter. But he needs lots and lots of help. So ignoring Potts going to give him the help he needs? Sometimes tough love is the best medicine. But you will never see me calling a player out and just trash him. I have not done this to Potts. Though some may disagree. What have said is that Potts needs to step up and become the leader of the team that he is not right now. If that is not a vote of confidence in a guy then you all need to look in the mirror and ask yourselves some hard questions.

I have asked repeatedly for Potts to step up and be the Tech team leader. That is not something you ask for a guy you do not want or do not like being the starting QB. Thus I challenge. I point out things that are what they are. Sometime we just do not like what it is. Sometimes we love what it is. We are in a rebuilding year. But we should not have a rebuilding back to the basics type of season.

So think about what it is that I am saying next time you all decide to throw your hate and threats of personal violence my way.

ESPN Dolts do it again!

Pablo M — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:53:34 -0000

I was looking at the ESPN schedule of games at 10:30am today and guess what ESPN has up. Houston v UTEP at 9:15EST. It was also listed that same way on the ESPN gameday as well on the ESPN game Ticket.

This is the Third time this year they have screwed up about Tech. The only one they have gotten right is the game against Texas. Says a lot about the incompetence of the staff at ESPN.

Texas Tech Future Schedules. ????

Pablo M — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:19:56 -0000

i was looking at an article from ESPN that talked about top programs and who they will be playing through the 2015 to 2020 seasons. So I decided to look at Texas Tech's future schedules. One thing that jumped right out is the lack of future scheduling. The second thing I noticed is that Leach finally did not schedule a D II team for the next two years. See: http://huddleuptexas.com/College/FutureSkeds/BXII.htm

2010 schedule looks nice and I think we as Tech supporters will love it. SMU, New Mexico, TCU and Houston shapes up as a very nice set of nonconference teams and should boost Tech's power rating through the roof.

2011 is TCU, New Mexico and Nevada with Louisiana L the Ragin Cajun with the tentative pencil in as first choice or another series with Texas El Paso.

2012 is just New Mexico.

Though its not uncommon in scheduling its becoming a big deal in who you schedule as preseason rankings and BSC inside track for the season. I would love for Tech to schedue for example, Arizona or Arizona State, a Big 10 team like Illinois or Minnisota or even Iowa. I would love to see Michigan or Michgan State. Then there is the MAC teams. Any of these would put Tech in the inside track. Tulsa would be nice but they pulled from Playing Tech through the 2011 season in a home and home to preserve their chances at going to a higher bowl.

It may scare some people to play the higher talent than what we normally do. But the truth is that we are demanding more of the program than ever in the past. We are seriously as boosters and fans looking for the next step up the rung to a conference title, a BCS Bowl and a national Title. These things are now just 2 games and 5 high level recruits away.

All we need do is take the first step to a great future.

How does Texas Tech really compare this year to past years? Game 4

Pablo M — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:45:02 -0000

Ok. Game 4 is done, The BCS is coming out and we all have the same question. Were are we as a program and how does it really compare to past years. So after 4 weeks lets take a look.

Defense.

2007

Points allowed: 25.75 Rush D: 171.0 Total offense Allowed: 367.1

Points allowed Conference: 29.75 Rush D YPR: 3.9 Offense allowed PP: 4.9

Points allowed non Conf: 17.75 Pass D: 196.1 3rd Down Conv: 82-194 42%

Pass D YPR: 11.4 4th Down Conv: 15- 26 58%

Int: 10- 48 (.83 pg) Sacks: 23: 167 (2 pg)

2008

Points allowed: 26.25 Rush D: 133.5 Total Off Allowed: 371.58

Points Conference: 31.38 Rush D YPR: 4.7 Offense Allowed PP: 5.5

Points Non Conference: 16 Pass D: 238.08 3rd Down conv: 56- 148 38%

Pass DYPR: 11.1 4th Down conv: 13- 26 50%

Int: 17- 134.4 (1.42 pg) Sacks: 30- 183 (2.5 pg)

_________________________________________________________________________________________

2009 4 Games

Points allowed: 21.5 Rush D: (141-442) 110.5 Total Off Allowed: (302-1383) 345.75

Points Conference: 34                       Rush D YPR: 3.1                                      Offense Allowed PP: 4.6

Points Non Conference: 17.3            Pass D: (107-971) 242.8                       3rd Down conv: 37- 63 59%

                                                                 Pass DYPR: 9.1                                        4th Down conv: 2- 5 40%

                                                                 Int: 3-10 (.75 pg)                                       Sacks: 11- 66 (2.75 pg)

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Defense:

Offense:

2005

Points: 39.4 Rush: 107.0 3rd Down Conv: 53-145 37%

Points Conference: 33.0 Rush YPR: 4.2 4th Down Conv: 14-19 74%

Points NonConference: 66.3 Pass: 385.4 Punts: 50 at 42.0 pk

Total Offense: 492.4 Pass YPR: 11.8 Kick RY: 25- 466 at 18.6 PR

Offense YPP: 6.6 Int: 12- 103 (1pg) Sacks: 36-281 (3 pg)

Score per quarter TTU v OPP: 1st: 103-32 2nd: 124- 69 3rd: 103- 48 4th: 143-72 OT: 0-0

Per game average: 1st: 8.6- 2.7 2nd: 10.3- 5.8 3rd: 8.6- 4 4th: 11.9- 6 OT: 0-0

2006

Points: 34.0 Rush: 79.3 3rd Down Conv: 55-149 37%

Points Conference: 35.75 Rush YPR: 4.7 4th Down Conv: 11-23 48%

Points NonConference: 34.5 Pass: 369.5 Punts: 44 at 44.2 pk

Total Offense: 448.8 Pass YPR: 11.0 Kick RY: 37-587 at 15.9 PR

Offense YPP: 6.7 Int: 21-36 (1.75 pg) Sacks: 19-122 (1.6 pg)

Score per quarter TTU v OPP: 1st: 90-78 2nd: 159- 125 3rd: 80- 55 4th: 84- 65 OT: 9- 3

Per game average: 1st: 7.5- 6.5 2nd: 13.3- 10.4 3rd: 6.7- 4.6 4th: 7- 5.4 OT:.75- .25

2007

Points: 42.08 Rush: 61.4 3rd Down Conv: 68-145 47%

Points Conference: 34.13 Rush YPR: 3.34 4th Down Conv: 16- 26 62%

Points NonConference: 57 Pass: 475.6 Punts: 26 at 42.6 pk

Total Offense: 537.0 Pass YPR: 11.4 Kick RY: 45- 973 at 21.6 PR

Offense YPP: 7.0 Int: 15-305 (1.25 pg) Sacks: 15- 110 (1.25 pg)

Score per quarter TTU v OPP: 1st: 107- 79 2nd: 168- 86 3rd: 111-44 4th: 115-100 OT: 0-0

Per game average: 1st: 8.9- 6.6 2nd: 14- 7.2 3rd: 9.3- 3.7 4th: 9.6- 8.3 OT: 0-0

2008

Points: 44.6 Rush: 131.42 3rd Down Conv: 84- 154 55%

Points Conference: 44.0 Rush YPR: 4.7 4th Down Conv: 15- 23 65%

Points NonConference: 45.75 Pass: 417.25 Punts: 22 at 34.7 pk

Total Offense: 536.22 Pass YPR: 11.7 Kick RY:38-841 at 22.1 PR

Offense YPP: 7.1 Int: 8-119 (.67 pg) Sacks: 11- 104 (.92 pg)

Score per quarter TTU v OPP: 1st: 139- 68 2nd: 148-106 3rd: 122-62 4th: 120- 79 OT: 6-0

Per game average: 1st: 11.6- 5.6 2nd: 12.3- 8.8 3rd: 10.2- 5.2 4th: 10- 6.6 OT: .5- 0

________________________________________________________________________________________

2009 4 Games

Offense

Points: (4-145) 36.25 Rush: (83-249) 62.25 3rd Down Conv: 19- 37 51%

Points Conference: 24 Rush YPR: 3.0 4th Down Conv: 4- 7 57 %

Points NonConference: 40.3 Pass: 413.5 Punts: 12-500 at 41.6 pk

Total Offense: (303- 1913) 478.3 Pass YPR: (150- 1654) 11.0 Kick RY:19- 480 at 25.3 PR

Offense YPP: 6.3 Int: 4-32 (1 pg) Sacks: 4- 64 (1.3pg)

Score per quarter TTU v OPP: 1st: 38- 17 2nd: 21- 15 3rd: 63- 24 4th: 37- 30 OT: 0-0

Per game average: 1st: 9.5- 4.25 2nd: 5.25- 3.75 3rd: 15.75- 6 4th: 9.25-7.5 OT: 0-0

How does Texas Tech really compare this year to past years?

Pablo M — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:07:33 -0000

There have been many wondering just how Texas Tech really is comparing to the past and where is Texas Tech in progression compare to what is expected.

I have read this from more than 100 people within DT nation asking this very question and many have views that range all over the place. No one seems to have a stat or straight up answer. Thus everyone says Texas Tech right now is an unknown and only time will tell as in end of season.

I thought about this for some time. I think I may have a solution that can be used to compare Texas Tech now and it can progress with the season.

I broke this comparison into two major categories of offense and defense. I do have some kicking stats added to the offense and defense. I decided that special teams issues are additive to either offense or defense respectively and is more dependent upon quality of the player or players than the stat deserves. Thus I do not want to make the special teams stat be a comparison of player v player. That is just to subjective.

For Defense, I limited it to the 2007 and 2008 seasons. This is because of Ruffin. However, I know some will say that its unfair for the full 2007 season but in reality it is the same players and its not right to do just part of a season. But it does give some interesting results and does give a starting point of where is the defense. Is it getting better or worse over time..

For Offense, I limited it to the seasons of 2005 to 2009. The reasoning I had for this is recruiting. 2005 is the year that recruiting dramatically improved. Secondly, not all the stats are available because no one bothered to keep them for some categories until 2004 and 2005. This is more so for Defense than offense. But I decided that 4 year block is enough for a comparison to see where Tech is and to really look to see what is what.

I will post to compare as the season progresses.

These are all average numbers thus can be compare to each game and then averaged for games played as well.

First Defense.

2007

Points allowed: 25.75 Rush D: 171.0 Total offense Allowed: 367.1

Points allowed Conference: 29.75 Rush D YPR: 3.9 Offense allowed PP: 4.9

Points allowed non Conf: 17.75 Pass D: 196.1 3rd Down Conv: 82-194 42%

Pass D YPR: 11.4 4th Down Conv: 15- 26 58%

Int: 10- 48 (.83 pg) Sacks: 23: 167 (2 pg)

2008

Points allowed: 26.25 Rush D: 133.5 Total Off Allowed: 371.58

Points Conference: 31.38 Rush D YPR: 4.7 Offense Allowed PP: 5.5

Points Non Conference: 16 Pass D: 238.08 3rd Down conv: 56- 148 38%

Pass DYPR: 11.1 4th Down conv: 13- 26 50%

Int: 17- 134.4 (1.42 pg) Sacks: 30- 183 (2.5 pg)

_________________________________________________________________________________________

2009 2 Games

Defense:

Points allowed: 11.5 Rush D: (64-133) 66.5 Total Off Allowed: (133-464) 232

Points Conference: 0 Rush D YPR: 2.1 Offense Allowed PP: 3.5

Points Non Conference: 11.5 Pass D: (45-331) 165.5 3rd Down conv: 19- 28 36%

Pass DYPR: 7.4 4th Down conv: 1- 4 25%

Int: 1-0 (.5 pg) Sacks: 8- 42 (4 pg)

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Offense:

2005

Points: 39.4 Rush: 107.0 3rd Down Conv: 53-145 37%

Points Conference: 33.0 Rush YPR: 4.2 4th Down Conv: 14-19 74%

Points NonConference: 66.3 Pass: 385.4 Punts: 50 at 42.0 pk

Total Offense: 492.4 Pass YPR: 11.8 Kick RY: 25- 466 at 18.6 PR

Offense YPP: 6.6 Int: 12- 103 (1pg) Sacks: 36-281 (3 pg)

Score per quarter TTU v OPP: 1st: 103-32 2nd: 124- 69 3rd: 103- 48 4th: 143-72 OT: 0-0

Per game average: 1st: 8.6- 2.7 2nd: 10.3- 5.8 3rd: 8.6- 4 4th: 11.9- 6 OT: 0-0

2006

Points: 34.0 Rush: 79.3 3rd Down Conv: 55-149 37%

Points Conference: 35.75 Rush YPR: 4.7 4th Down Conv: 11-23 48%

Points NonConference: 34.5 Pass: 369.5 Punts: 44 at 44.2 pk

Total Offense: 448.8 Pass YPR: 11.0 Kick RY: 37-587 at 15.9 PR

Offense YPP: 6.7 Int: 21-36 (1.75 pg) Sacks: 19-122 (1.6 pg)

Score per quarter TTU v OPP: 1st: 90-78 2nd: 159- 125 3rd: 80- 55 4th: 84- 65 OT: 9- 3

Per game average: 1st: 7.5- 6.5 2nd: 13.3- 10.4 3rd: 6.7- 4.6 4th: 7- 5.4 OT:.75- .25

2007

Points: 42.08 Rush: 61.4 3rd Down Conv: 68-145 47%

Points Conference: 34.13 Rush YPR: 3.34 4th Down Conv: 16- 26 62%

Points NonConference: 57 Pass: 475.6 Punts: 26 at 42.6 pk

Total Offense: 537.0 Pass YPR: 11.4 Kick RY: 45- 973 at 21.6 PR

Offense YPP: 7.0 Int: 15-305 (1.25 pg) Sacks: 15- 110 (1.25 pg)

Score per quarter TTU v OPP: 1st: 107- 79 2nd: 168- 86 3rd: 111-44 4th: 115-100 OT: 0-0

Per game average: 1st: 8.9- 6.6 2nd: 14- 7.2 3rd: 9.3- 3.7 4th: 9.6- 8.3 OT: 0-0

2008

Points: 44.6 Rush: 131.42 3rd Down Conv: 84- 154 55%

Points Conference: 44.0 Rush YPR: 4.7 4th Down Conv: 15- 23 65%

Points NonConference: 45.75 Pass: 417.25 Punts: 22 at 34.7 pk

Total Offense: 536.22 Pass YPR: 11.7 Kick RY:38-841 at 22.1 PR

Offense YPP: 7.1 Int: 8-119 (.67 pg) Sacks: 11- 104 (.92 pg)

Score per quarter TTU v OPP: 1st: 139- 68 2nd: 148-106 3rd: 122-62 4th: 120- 79 OT: 6-0

Per game average: 1st: 11.6- 5.6 2nd: 12.3- 8.8 3rd: 10.2- 5.2 4th: 10- 6.6 OT: .5- 0

________________________________________________________________________________________

2009 2 Games

Offense:

Points: 46.5 Rush: 46 3rd Down Conv: 13- 25 52%

Points Conference: 0 Rush YPR: 2.8 4th Down Conv: 4- 6 67 %

Points NonConference: 46.5 Pass: 456.5 Punts: 2 at 38 pk

Total Offense: 507.5 Pass YPR: (74- 913) 12.3 Kick RY:7- 205 at 29.3 PR

Offense YPP: 7.0 Int: 3-32 (1.5 pg) Sacks: 1- 9 (.5pg)

Score per quarter TTU v OPP: 1st: 28- 3 2nd: 7- 6 3rd: 28- 0 4th: 30- 14 OT: 0-0

Per game average: 1st: 14- 1.5 2nd: 3.5- 3 3rd: 14- 0 4th: 15- 7 OT: 0-0

Just a thought. Better Uniforms for better Image!

Pablo M — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:44:24 -0000

After two games we have seen Tech in two of three of the standard uniform formats. The all red is rare but is nice to see. Black with a silver white pants kinda is sucky in the way it looks. The all black is like the red and it definitely has a mental effect with both players and fans.

The best uniform combo was the Black shirt with the metallic red pants that was displayed some years ago. I am talking about the Black shirt with red highlights version of the black Tech has.

I know that we have several versions of uniforms. But honestly, the effect of color does impress a mental effect on both players and fans and especially opposing teams. I know this for a fact. Teams that have multi- color uniforms see to do better because of the shock value. I saw a study once that some Ivy league school did on color and game effects. It basically stated that strong and shocking differences in color do cause intimidation and makes players seen bigger and more powerful than they really are. It goes back to society conditioning.

Tech is very fortunate in that the two most violent colors are red and black. So why not use it to our advantage?

Boise State uses color is its shock effect with the Blue field. Which by the way, Darker blue is 4th in the list of shocking colors. Red, Black, Bright bright yellow, Blue ( non pastels or dark), Bright orange, Bright green, Super bright white.

Do not take my word for it, read what Nike has to say about its new line of shoes which come in 5 colors called the Dunk High shocking color shoes. They are Red, Yellow, Blue, Black, silver and white. Even in the ads they point to what I am refering to. You can see an ad of this at http://www.geeksneakers.com/nike/nylon-magazine-x-nike-sportswear-dunk-high-sense-shocking-colors. This ad only shows three of the so called shocking colors Bright Yellow, Bright Blue and Bright Orange. You can visit the Nike site and scroll around to fine bright Varsity Red, Metallic silver, Coal black and bright white versions.

Nike admits along with many others that the list of shocking colors make people look much more agressive and intimidating than they really are. So I ask, why not do it for games like Texas, Oklahoma State, and OU.

Texas Tech getting Screwed in BCS and Polls

Pablo M — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:13:25 -0000

I took a look at something that is troubling. I looked at what people were saying about Texas Tech and why they are being kept down in the poll this year. Almost to the person, all point to SOS and who Tech is playing as a major issue. When you shoot that down then they go after other issues until that is shot down and thus you are left with nothing but stupid comments being made by people who are responsible for the BCS polling and bowl Selections.

So lets really take a look at that. I do not want to post for all D1 A teams so lets just take Florida and Texas.

According to the NCAA own current BCS SOS which is being used by ESPN, AP and Coaches Poll, which is also produced by the USA Today sports consultant and is part of the BCS calculation . http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt08.htm

Thus according to all the pollsters its SOS compared to rank which is completely random and meaning less. Basically according to AP and CBS polls they take SOS and average that against rank a team has. Ok lets actually do that and see what happens.

Flordia Opened with DI AA Charleston Southern. They have Troy, Florida International and Florida State then conference . Florida currently has a SOS of 1. Yet numbers of the teams they play are less than Texas.

Example: Charleston southern by definition ranks 121 according to rule which is just behind Western Kentucky which has the 120 spot because they are neither D1 A or D1 AA they are in limbo for the last 6 years as the NCAA has not addressed their actual placement.

Charleston Southern 121. Troy 78, Kentucky 38, Tennessee 42, LSU 11, Arkansas 81, Mississippi State 69, Georgia, 17, Vanderbilt 60, South Carolina 35 and Florida State 26 gives a schedule average of 48.2 and a final rating of .49

Texas has LA Monroe, Wyoming UTEP and UCF. The rest is Conference. Texas has a SOS of 4.

Thus: LA Monroe 116, Wyoming, 91, Texas Tech 30, UTEP 89, Colorado 77, Oklahoma 13, Missouri 47, OK State 7, UCF96, Baylor 53, Kansas 19, T A&M 70. Average Schedule 59 with a final rating of .62

Texas Tech: Has NorthDakota, Rice, Houston and New Mexico with the rest conference.

Thus: North Dakota 121, Rice 106, Texas 2, Houston 27, New Mexico 84, Kansas State 76, Nebraska 20, T A&M 70, Kansas 19, Oklahoma State 7, Oklahoma 13, Baylor 53. Average Schedule 50 Final Rating of .57

Because of the Strong SOS of Florida of 98.74 it places them very high. Thus they rate higher than both Texas and Texas Tech. But Texas ranks lower than Texas Tech

In this three team example, Polling based on the comments of the AP Sports morons, and other would have Florida ranked 1 with a score of .49, Texas Tech 2 with .57 and Texas 3 with .62.

What I wanted to point out is that the pollsters can not even make their own excuses and number work to justify the rankings that they give. What is sad is that the AP and Coaches Poll have to much input into the finalization of the BCS positioning by the end of the season.

Thus a Team like Tech can get screwed as they were last year when it came down to overall BCS ranking in the tie breaker. Imagine if Texas Tech has a better ranking that was calaculated properly according to what the pollsters actually claim! Tech could have won the Big 12 South Title last year.

I am not trying to push sour grapes or rehash last season. What pisses me off is that the pollsters do not even follow their own rules or calculations when doing the polling. It also shows how bad the state of affairs are in college sports in trying to decide which teams are better than others.

What is interesting is that SOS for the BCS changes as the season progresses. But for the first two weeks of the BCS this stands as the basis as BCS looks at three or more conference games before they adjust the bias.

What I do not get is why is Tech being knocked for playing a D1 AA and Florida is not for playing a similarly ranked Charleston Southern? Virginia for example got their but handed to them by a strong AA program that in all honesty Ranks 89th and is ranked higher than Texas A&M.

When I crunched the numbers, It just does not add up. Thus there is more than a little bias being played out. What I hate is hypocrites in the media and snubbing hypocrisy. If the AP or USA is going to Bash Texas Tech for playing a AA then the same should be applied to the media darling Florida. I for one, do not like the idea that teams should not play a AA school. There is no reason why a DI A can not play a AA no more than once. Especially when the AA is a quality program of a smaller school. Which is the real issue here. Its a form of bigotry because a school is smaller than the current establishment of what is a proper university.

Yet, Harvard, Yale, William and Mary, James Madison and other highly respected schools are D1 AA in football. Thus there is a type of issue here that is more akin to Racism than simple stupidity of the AP sportswriters and other pollsters.

What I have found is that Polls are more attached to TV ratings, Advertisement and pure greed than to the realities of what the kids do on the field.

Texas Tech University is one of the Top schools in country

Pablo M — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:19:13 -0000

Although people from Texas and Texas A&M can lay claims to having a higher rankings than Tech in some categories, They do not rank in all categories over Tech.

I thought about this after reading a post about Recruits and quality of education at Texas Tech. So I put together some interesting stats which are the 2009 or 2010 rankings.

Texas Tech School of Law is ranked 9th and has more students pass the bar than any other school in Texas and does better than Yale or Harvard in passing the bar. Not only that but Texas Tech is ranked one of the best in the country for cost of education to become a lawyer.

School of Engineering is a rising star nationally. Texas Tech has risen in the rankings more than any other school nationally over the last 5 years. Currently Tech ranks 78th out of the the 213 accredited schools nationally and out of the 1200 schools which have engineering programs.

In the graduate level of Engineering national rankings:

Petroleum ranks 10th

Civil ranks 65th

Electrical 65th

Industrial 26th

Wind 4th

Mechanical 95th

Chemical 48th

Computer 70th

Engineering Graduate school overall rating 48th

Business School ranks 77th out of 150

MBA ranks 94th

Chemistry ranks 90th with a graduate rating of 67th

Mathematics undergraduaterating is 97th with a graduate rating of 103

Geosciences 86th with a graduate rating of 41st with Geochemistry ranking 4th in the nation.

Physics ranks 118 and graduate level is 116.

What this list shows is that Texas Tech is one of the top schools in the nation considering that there is more than 300 schools with programs equivalent to Tech and the fact that there is some 1200 schools nationally who offer degrees but whose programs who are not accredited and severely substandard.

Texas Tech is in the Top 100 nationally across the board. That means that Tech does well even with Ivy league schools.

I pulled these stats from TTU official websites and the US and News World report who does University rankings. There are other ranking systems out there which sell the ranking to those who are willing to pay for their placement or other corrupt means. One of the worst is Top universities.com which was caught selling ranking positions by the Washington Post.

Thus for any recruits out there, Texas Tech is a top school and the cost of graduate school is a bargain where some of the top categories Tech Ranks in the Top 40 which is considered by US News and World Report as the elite programs in the US.

Hats off to the Students, Alumni and Faculty of Tech who have made the program one of the Nations Top Universities in the US.

NCAA Reponse to Question of bowls

Pablo M — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:10:17 -0000

Here is the response I received from the NCAA. I have blocked out my personal email as I do not wish spam or pranks showing up in my box.

The origanl question posed was which teams from the Big 12 can be selected to the Fiesta bowl given the current BCS rules and NCAA guides.

Thus I am disappointed in the mail I recieved.

From: MBrand@ncaa.org

Date: Friday December 12, 2008 4:24pm

To:pablo222@_________.net

Subject: Bowl Selection Proceedure

Mr. Madison,

It is not beneficial to address the question you have posed after the bowl selections have been made public. To answer your hypothetical question, would cause confusion and could lead to unresolvable complaints. For this reason, please understand that the BCS rules are not perfect. Now that the selections are completed, any hypothetical question is made mute. Please just accept the bowl selections as they have been made as nothing can be changed once the bowls have made their selection and teams accepted the bids.

Sincerely,

Myles Brand