SB Nation User Blog: pcrawttu

Don't tell the Aggies, but...

pcrawttu — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:13:23 -0000

Surprisingly, according to Pat Forde at ESPN, the Tech/AtM conflict is the #6 current rivalry in college football right now. Unsurprisingly, OU/UT is number 1. Here's the story:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=4297677&sportCat=ncf

From pirates and soldiers to draft pick controversies and goal post jousting, I find it hilarious that people totally unassociated with either program can identify the bitter feud between the two schools as a rivalry. Most fans of Tech also recognize this status. But the proud Aggie gods cannot find a place in their schedule of hallowed traditions to include Tech as a rival. That is the humor in the whole situation.

I know the standard response from AtM fans will be something along the lines of, "Tech is not a rival. They are so pathetic and classless that they can't get a real rival. blah, blah, academics, blah, blah. UT is our real rival and we beat them a couple times recently." (Wait the last sentence should've read, "t.u. is our real rival...") UT is so far ahead of AtM in football right now, though, many longhorn fans would probably be surprised to find out that the Aggies are still fielding a team.

Tech's program is ahead of the Aggies also, but the off-field drama and hatred is what has propelled this rivalry so far up. In fact, AtM should be happy that this whole "rivalry" thing is panning out. It's about the only way they can get any press outside of Fran-gate and people trying to analyze if they will be able to compete with Baylor for 5th place this year or not.

So here's to the official #6 rivalry! (whether they like it or not.)

Affect on QB recruiting?

pcrawttu — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:53:01 -0000

I read an article in either the Bryan paper or the Houston Chron (sorry I can't find it now to provide the link, but I think it was Bryan. If you know what I'm talking about, please post it!) that said that having McGee recruited is a product of Sherman's connections to the NFL and will help recruiting. That is pure BS.

This battle of words will have no effect on QB recruiting. Either a kid wants to go to college and lead the country in passing or they can go play for a 4-8 team where their role on the team is to possibly throw or possibly get slammed in the option (aka getting hurt) or whatever else the coaches "feel will help them win."

First, if Sherman's NFL connections were so great, wouldn't he still be coaching there instead of dropping to a has-been football program at the college level?

Second, Sherman didn't recruit McGee, so it's not as if he can take full responsibility to say that his "NFL eye" brought him into AtM or got him drafted. His impressive showing at the combine was the sole reason for that (combination of decent size/strength, brain, and mostly speed).

Third, if a kid is big enough and has certain tools, he will be considered an NFL prospect (see Freeman and kid out at WTAMU). Going to AtM or anywhere else will not magically change that at all. In fact, apparently going to AtM could possibly be a hindrance because the coaches are not able enough to effectively utilize the skills and translate them into team success. One positive, though, is that this future nfl qb should be fresh and well rested after sitting on the bench for most of the season.

If we do the math, only about 10 D-1 QB's and a few D-2, were drafted (out of about 115 teams, although I don't know how many seniors were actually available), and most of those were in lower rounds. So even if they're not the protypical mold that the nfl has created, a talented kid who wants success can go play for Leach, knowing that realistically and statistically that making it to the NFL AND being able to succeed there is a long shot for anyone. If they only want a mediocre college career and the slim possibility of team success while banking on the crapshoot of the nfl draft, they can try AtM. But beware, AtM is not known as a "quarterback factory" and the sun shines on every dog's ass sometimes.

Are there any schools that consistently have qb's drafted, besides USC? The draft is quite fickle when it comes to this. Additionally, I'm not an expert at this, but I don't imagine there is a whole world of difference between getting drafted in the 6th or 7th rounds and being a free agent trying out at some mini camps, besides maybe some contract issues.

The whole point is that is that the draft is about the INDIVDUAL attributes and has nothing to do with the team (unless it is negative, i.e. "system" quarterback.)

Leach defends Crab's character

pcrawttu — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:50:57 -0000

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Texas-Tech-coach-rips-Mangini-for-calling-Crabtr?urn=nfl,159005

Here is an entertaining article about Leach's reaction to the newly conceived perception of Crabs as a diva. In addition to pointing out Al Davis' first class seat on the crazy train, Leach rips Browns coach Mangini pretty hard. I don't think many of Tech's players will be headed to Cleveland in the near future. If I was a player, though, I wouldn't be too broken up about it. Cleveland is not in my top 10 desirable places to live. I even found a video to back this up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysmLA5TqbIY&feature=player_embedded

2 out of 3 ain't bad

pcrawttu — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 04:05:09 -0000

Tech Baseball won 2 out of 3 ballgames over a ranked Aggies team this weekend. Sure it was at home, but considering the season this team has endured and some of the inexplicable non-conference losses, this is quite an accomplishment. Spencer definitely has these guys in the right direction. Admittedly I haven't followed the baseball team as much as I did when I lived in Lubbock, but it seems that a little more consistency and we've got a pretty good team. Keep it up guys!

UT STILL crying

pcrawttu — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:05:11 -0000

Take a look at the following article...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3937665

Will Mack Brown ever let this go? He is inviting "BCS gurus" to explain to him the nuances of the BCS system. Give me a break. This guy knows exactly how the system works, and he has worked it to his advantage before. Remember 2004, I think, when ol' Mack begged for his votes and got them to arrive in the Rose Bowl. They even tried this past year, with their whole "45-35" campaign.

He knows better than anybody the politicking involved, in addition to all the things the voters look for. He knows that it was a three way tie, nullifying the head to head argument. He knows that he still lost a game. He knows that OU finished the season in a much stronger and convincing manner. He knows that OU's out-of-conference schedule was stronger than his. He knows that OU's loss came earlier in the season. He knows that the BCS doesn't always make sense, just as he knows there are always winners and losers. More people just felt (and voted) that OU was the superior team at the end of the season.

Now he's STILL playing the role of the pathetic little victim. Does he really expect sympathy, especially after their lackluster performance against an over-rated Ohio State? Does he think that anyone outside of Austin really cares that the almighty UT still feels like they were screwed? Ask Utah how they feel, Mack.

Obviously Mack understands the system perfectly. He is already kicking off his campaign for next season to be the National Champs. Even before a snap gets taken on the field, he is trying to grab votes away from OU. He wants everyone to remember how bad they've been treated to get some sympathy votes and try to cover up a pathetically awful out of conference schedule in 2009. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the reason they wanted to move the Tech game up so early in the year was to give the voters some reason to forget that they are playing:

Sept. 5 Louisiana-Monroe
Sept. 12 at Wyoming
Sept. 26 UTEP
Nov. 7 UCF

And what exactly is Mack going to ask these BCS gurus? Maybe he wants to find out if UT needs more media exposure, because we all know that we never hear about them on Espn.

I sure wish I had the time and money to blow on having "experts" explain to me a process that was set up by a bunch of men just like Mack himself.

Myles Wade still considering UW?

pcrawttu — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 20:36:32 -0000

According to this story, Wade is still committed to Tech, but took a nice trip to Washington and apparently fell in love with the campus and was told by advisors that he could be a semester ahead with his college credits.

http://recruiting.scout.com/2/835049.html

I don't know why this worries me, but it does. I know Washington was 0-12 last year, but they have a new coach from the mighty USC and Seattle has something that Lubbock doesn't, nice scenery and the color green and this refreshing thing called water. Plus it's a lot closer to his home and the article said the coaches were trying to make him think that UW is an Ivy League school on the West Coast. Don't know about that, but a school has to sell themselves, right?

I just hope he does the right thing and look at how Tech's program is already on the right track, unlike the rebuilding process Washington will be going through for the next few years. Also, if the spotlight is important to him, there is definitely more potential at Tech after our stellar season than the mockery that is happening up there. Last, if education really matters to him, all I have to say is 79%. I found some numbers and Wahsington was 64%. That is a big difference considering how many guys are on a football team.

But I guess all we can really do is wait and see over the next few days.

MWC applying for BCS status

pcrawttu — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:42:42 -0000

I just read this article about the Mountain West Conference seeking status as an automatic qualifier in the BCS bowls.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3861079

First off, I think the BCS is a bunch of crap. But that is a common feeling these days.

I can understand why the Mountain West wants automatic status, especially after they had 3 powerful teams this year. But I'm not sure they will let in just one conference when the WAC had another highly ranked team also. Plus, if they let in the MWC, that would only leave one reamaining at-large bid, of which there is already a shortage.

The most obvious solution to this whole argument is to do away with the current system and start over. Due to money, contracts, and the good 'ol boy system of the power conferences, this will never happen.

On the other hand, the most sensible and fair adjustment to account for highly ranked non-bcs schools in the already broken bcs system would be to just dissolve the rule mandating the champion from the six bcs conferences. In fact, this should never had been a rule in the first place because it pretty much disqualifies half the schools in the country from ever dreaming of a bcs bowl. It also is the same system that forces the rich to get richer while the poor stay poor. This is the whole basis of Utah's lawsuit, also. But I digress.

Anyway, this different rule would account for shifts in power between schools and conferences. While one of the "power" conferences may be having an off year, one of the "lesser" conferences may be having a stellar year. In this case, I would propose that the 6 most highly ranked confererence champions would be guaranteed to play in bcs bowls and throw in the 2 at-large bids also. That way, if a conference champion is ranked, say, #19 or #12 (Virginia Tech, Cincy), they don't automatically beat out other conference champs ranked #6 or #9 (Utah, Boise St.).

Even though these other conferences have been historically weaker, enough people and computers obviously think they are pretty good and prove themselves, or else they wouldn't be voting them that high. And some of these teams have started to build solid reputations and have proven themselves for years now (see Utah, TCU, Boise St.) If they were really that weak, they would still be getting voted with the pollsters "fluke vote" in the upper-teens, like Tulsa and Ball St. earlier this past season.

And we could go on and on about this.

Or college football could just have a playoff.

Tech #12 in AP and Coaches polls

pcrawttu — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:29:36 -0000

Tech finishes the year at #12 in both of these polls. I guess that is about where I assumed they would finish, if not a little higher than I anticipated. I'm not entirely mad at that ranking, but if you compare Tech's ENTIRE body of wins and losses to some of the teams around them, you might argue that Tech could have been a few slots higher. But like always, if Tech had lost earlier in the season and not finished up with their sub-par performances, it would be a totally different story.

If voters just looked at who each team beat and lost to, Tech definitely would be bumped up a few slots. Using the final rankings, we can compare Tech to those around it:

#12 Tech beat #4 and #16 lost to #5 and #14

#7 TCU beat #11 and #25 lost to #5 and #11

#8 Penn St. beat #24, #18, and #9 lost to #20 and #3

#9 Ohio State only beat #24 lost to #3, #4, #8

#10 Oregon beat #18 and #25 lost to #3, #11, and #26

#11 Boise State beat #10 lost to #7

I think if you compare these resumes, Tech definitely has an argument to move up at least 3 or 4 spots, despite their rather poor performance to end the season. Voters obviously take into account how hot a team is at the moment and have short memories. In my opinion, for the final poll, they should sit down and look over the entire season, not just how a team fared in their bowl game while adding that to the name power some schools have.

Here's my biggest gripe: When all is said and done, Ohio State's only "good" win of the season came over #24 Michigan State, AND they have 3 losses AND they lost their bowl game (and big10's overall bowl record was 1-6). How does that add up to being the #9 team in the country? Even Boise St. with a joke of a schedule managed to pull off a better win over #10 Oregon which is discussed next.

To prove that voters vote for "hot" teams, Oregon crazily moved up to number 10 after finishing the season with their two best wins over #18 and #25. They also have 3 losses. So apparently 3 losses aren't so bad as long as you have that awesome signature win over the #18 team in the country. Huh.

Tech played arguably the toughest schedule of this lot, had the best win over a highest ranked opponent by far (next closest was a win over a #9 team), only had 2 losses total, and is ranked the lowest. Penn St. and TCU might have an argument to be ranked higher, except that Tech's middle grade wins over Kansas and Nebraska would trump anything crap pile other wins they have (TCU's Air Force win and PSU's Wisconsin win).

Overall, Tech had its chance to make a statement and they didn't. But that still should not negate their entire season of work, which was quite impressive by any standards.

Utah Attorney General bringing anti-trust case against BCS

pcrawttu — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:34:54 -0000

Utah Attorney General bringing anti-trust case against BCS

I just saw this story and think it's interesting. I'm no lawyer or anything, but it makes sense to me that there's a monopoly of the big schools in college football, especially since so much money is involved. We'll see if it really goes anywhere, but it does make a good point.

Davey O'Brien Finalists

pcrawttu — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:29:40 -0000

The Davey O'Brien finalists have been announced. The three are...

...drumroll...

Colt "Gritty Texas Kid 'snubbed by BCS'" McCoy - Anybody surprised?

Sam Bradford - Anybody surprised?

And...not Tim Tebow. What?? NOT Tim Tebow??

Nope, the other finalist is Texas Tech's own Graham Harrell! Now, don't get too excited, Red Raider fans, I'm sure they just needed someone else to go to the dinner next to the two "real" finalists. And I don't know how much the "fan" vote counts, but McCoy finished with 67% of that. Guess the fans are taking into account all the "lack of talent" that UT throws onto the field. Harrell and Bradford split the rest of the votes.

But how can that be. Surely to be included in the Heisman, as the best player in the country, you should be considered one of the TOP 3 at YOUR OWN POSITION. Except for the rare case that you play another position, but I don't see Tebow out making killer kick returns or drilling anybody as a linebacker. He does run the ball some, but he's still a QB, and in his system, one of the roles of the position of QB is to run the ball some. So how do you get considered the greatest player, but not one of the greatest players at the position in which you play on the field?

It kind of reminds of all the questions people have about letting a team play for the National Championship even if they don't win their own conference. How can a team be considered the Nation's best team if they technically aren't their conference's best team?

The Davey O'Brien award gets voted by a bunch of media elite and former O'Brien winners, just like the Heisman (and I assume the fan vote is very small, if even used at all, I don't know). So I don't understand the discrepancy. You would think that since the Heisman finalists all happened to be QB's, that it would just translate over to the QB award, right? Plus, Tebow won the award last year, so that should only help him, right?

Or maybe, somehow, people actually voted for one of the best at his position, since this isn't quite the popularity contest as the Heisman. Maybe somebody actually looked at the stats and how much he has done for his own team (record setting wins) including putting together an outrageously impossibe drive in 68 seconds and outshining the current frontrunner in the most memorable game of the year.

I'll let the media pick their darling, but we all know who is the best QB in the country. And he wears a sparkly black helmet on the plains of West Texas.