What The Tech-Oklahoma Game Really Means....
by Beergut on Nov 23, 2008 5:09 PM CST
32 comments
Texas Tech is still Texas Tech. Typical Tech. Good enough to be a gutty little spoiler (see upset win over texas), but not good enough to be an elite team (see blowout loss to Oklahoma). I think Tech is actually this year's version of 2007 Kansas. Kansas was able to parlay a weak non-conference schedule (Tech played two I-AA programs) into a fast start, had the advantage of not facing Oklahoma or texas last season, and was exposed as a fraud when they played eventual Big 12 North Champion Missouri. Kansas struggled to beat a mediocre to average A&M team on the road, and squeaked by an average Colorado team. Similarly, Tech needed overtime to beat an average Nebraska team at home, and was losing to a poor A&M team after the first half of their game this season.
Kansas made everyone forget about their struggles against Colorado and A&M by blowing Nebraska out of the water, 76-39, in Lawrence. Similarly, Tech made everyone overlook their struggles against Nebraska with their blowout win over Oklahoma State in Lubbock.
The main difference between the two teams, however, is that Kansas had a very stout defense, led by defensive guru Bill Young. Kansas was able to parlay their scheduling good fortune into a BCS bowl berth, where they beat a weak Virginia Tech team to win their first ever BCS bowl. Tech's defense has been shown to be a liability at times this season, and was completely exposed against Oklahoma last night.
Texas Tech's defensive line was gettng shoved backwards 6-7 yds on every play by OU's dominant offensive line. There were plays where the running backs weren't even being touched by a defender until they were 8-9 yds past the line of scrimmage. Ruffin McNeill has had the media singing his praises these last few weeks, but he was powerless to stop what was going on in Norman last night. Oklahoma had 625 yds of total offense and averaged 8 yds per play. McNeill should take solace in that it could have been worse, but Stoops called off the dogs, and had his 3rd and 4th teamers in during the 4th quarter.
Ultimately, what the Texas Tech-Oklahoma game really showed us last night is that when it comes to college football, Oklahoma is still Oklahoma, and Tech is, well, still Typical Tech.
0 recs |
32 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
What defines "Typical A&M?"
Tech has had a great season. Better than any A&M season I can remember. When was the last time A&M was ranked second in the polls this late in the season and 4 quarters from a likely MNC birth and a Heisman winner?
by the1austin on Nov 23, 2008 6:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
um
12 quarters away from a MNC berth
8 quarters away from a possible Heisman winner
Who cares what “typical A&M” is, that’s not what the point of the post is.
by carsondude on Nov 23, 2008 6:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course it's not.
Who would want to define that? Way more fun to kick Tech when they are down regardless of the success their program has had this decade.
by the1austin on Nov 23, 2008 9:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT?
It just seems like a mean-spirited attack on a team that just lost. It has absolutely zero relevance for Texas A&M football. Tech is still Tech… is that profound? Is that what fakes for good analysis around here?
What is the point?
by Skin Patrol on Nov 23, 2008 9:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the main point is that beergut just can’t stop trashing a team that had its best year ever. If it’s not jealousy driving him, then somebody give me a rational reason. Other than the obvious immaturity. He’s been trolling the Tech, OU, and UT sites since last night spewing hate in literally dozens of rants with nothing positive to add.
The sad part for Aggieland is that at the end of all his vitriol is the mantra – I am the 12th Man. Nice advertising. I’m sure real Aggies appreciate the hell out of that.
by TT_ on Nov 23, 2008 11:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well
Beergut has never attacked the school in his posts with anything other than rational arguments. They might be up for debate, but he’s not simply “bashing” the school. I’m not necessarily defending him, but I’m just pointing out that difference. Some of his comments are a little questionable, but the posts themselves usually have some pretty good football knowledge.
For example, this post simply compares this Tech team to last years Kansas team. Is the comparison correct? It’s up for debate, that’s why there is a comment section. But I wouldn’t call that immature or jealousy. If he came out and said, “Haha, tech lost. You guys suck, you can’t even put our a real defense.” That would be immature and irrational. This is different.
Just saying.
by carsondude on Nov 24, 2008 2:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well, A&M didn't have a game
so I thought I would comment on the big BCS game of the day, hence the BCS hub link
As it relates to A&M, A&M’s game on Thursday can still have a profound effect on the BCS rankings and help decide if one team may be eliminated (or stays in the running) for a national championship. If Tech had won on Saturday, the A&M-texas game would have less meaning to it, WRT the BCS.
by Beergut on Nov 24, 2008 2:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Kansas is a fair comparison.
The best teams they beat were the 2007 versions of Texas A&M and Oklahoma State. We beat: Texas and Oklahoma State in 2008. Both those teams were better than both the teams Kansas beat. Also their loss was considerably worse, as I think Okahoma this year is better than Missouri last year.
Just my two cents.
Do you really think Oklahoma State this year is comparable to Nebraska last year?
by Skin Patrol on Nov 23, 2008 9:25 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
What?
KU’s loss to Missouri last year is considerably worse than the egg that Tech laid on Saturday. Losing 36-28 to a team that finished the season with two losses at a neutral site is worse than getting pummeled 65-21. I know that this year’s OU team is better than Missouri of last year, but 65-21 speaks for itself.
by PrimeTime2012 on Nov 24, 2008 12:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
Oklahoma is considerably better this year than Missouri was last year, I think. I would even go so far as to say they’re that much better where the scores aren’t the deciding factor. But, even ignoring that, Tech still has far more valuable wins this year than Kansas had last year. Oklahoma State (in 2008) and Texas are both better than any team Kansas played last year. KANSAS this year is probably better than any team Kansas beat last year.
by Skin Patrol on Nov 24, 2008 6:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't comparing Okie State to Nebraska
as teams as much as I was just saying, “This blowout win is equal to that blowout win” in that it made the media think the teams in question were better than they really are (or were, in Kansas’ case).
by Beergut on Nov 24, 2008 2:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The reason this isn't a fair comparison, in my opinion,
is that there’s nothing for people to forget or remember about Tech’s schedule. We were always and only as good as our schedule, which necessarily included a tough game against Nebraska. Nobody thought us at Oklahoma was a gimme. We were underdogs. We got the shit kicked out of us.
But we’ve DONE more this year than Kansas did last year. If people were fooled into thinking Kansas was better than they were, it’s because they hadn’t done anything to deserve praise. They didn’t beat a top 5 team. They didn’t beat a top 30 team. We did, at Kansas, and at home against UT and at home against OSU.
by Skin Patrol on Nov 24, 2008 6:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What Beergut is trying to point.
I think this year’s Tech team is way better than that Kansas team. As far as accomplishments Tech has done more than Kansas did. But I think Beergut’s argument is the similarities in the seasons. KU came out of nowhere and beat up on a weak schedule. You guys didn’t necessarily come out of nowhere because you have been a solid program for the last 9 years or so. The thing is both of you guys came into elite statuses out of nowhere. KU, baiscally, had done nothing before last year in terms of conference titles and national titles and neither have you guys.
That is what I think Beergut’s is trying to parallel. Your program’s sudden rise into national title contender and, in KU’s case, sudden fall back into mediocrity. That must have been the worse 12-1 major conference team in modern history. Unbelievably bad team and it speaks volumes about how bad Va Tech was.
by PrimeTime2012 on Nov 24, 2008 6:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
if we came into national prominence by beating good teams then how far does the comparison really go? Did we beat up on a week schedule? Jeff Sagarin thinks we’re 10-1 on the 19th toughest schedule in the NCAA. Whatever happens, we have already accomplished more than Kansas did all last year.
by Skin Patrol on Nov 24, 2008 9:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the KU comparison was a good one. I think the Tech ranking has a lot to do with the fact that college football as a whole is down this year, and no one in the Big 12 plays defense. No one in the SEC really has a great offense either. There are very few (if any) complete teams with year with a great offense, defense, and special teams. Just a bad year all around.
38-30
by miketag on Nov 23, 2008 9:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
Because the Big-12 south is really having a down year. Comparisons between the Big-12 south in 2008 and the Big-12 north in 2007 are quite appropriate. Except they are not.
by Skin Patrol on Nov 23, 2008 11:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You guys make it seem like Tech came out of nowhere this year! This is a ridiculous Aggie style comparison.....
KU sucked before last year, and sucked again this year. Tech has been incredible consistent under Leach. When was the last time they didn’t win 8 games? Tech beat Texas at Lubbock on 2001 and again this year. They beat Oklahoma twice in the last four years. After Texas and Oklahoma, and with Nebraska sucking the last decade, Tech is unquestionable the next best team year in and year out in the Big 12.
Even Missouri barely arrived on the scene last season. If you want to talk about a team taking advantage of a down year in college football you have two prime examples last season with Mizzou and KU. The success of KU’s season was unquestionably linked to the fact that they didn’t have to play Texas, OU, or Texas Tech. Mizzou didn’t draw Texas either. Last year, a 2 loss team won the National Championship.
This season, a 1 loss USC can’t get past #5 in the BCS! Is their defense good enough for you guys? There are at least 6 elite teams with only 1 loss this season who all would have walked into the MNC last year (Texas, OU, Tech, USC, Alabama, Florida).
College football as a whole is not down this year. If Texas A&M mattered, maybe you guys would notice how incredible this season has been.
by the1austin on Nov 24, 2008 2:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right, in a way.
IIRC, Tech hasn’t had a 10 win season since the early 70s. I have to hand it to Tech for finally overcoming what had been an annual barrier for them. Are they elite? Nah. So, typical Tech I suppose.
by FuturePants on Nov 24, 2008 1:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What is "elite"?
Top 10 obviously isn’t, so you qualify it… top 5? Top 2? Only the #1 team in the country is elite?
by Skin Patrol on Nov 24, 2008 6:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
so typical Tech
can range anywhere from 7-6 to one game shy of a national championship bid and ‘elite’ status in college football, then. Trenchant analysis.
by mojavereject on Nov 25, 2008 12:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Its more
than 1 game out. Tech would’ve had to beat baylor and then mizzou to get to the national championship game.
by the12thman11 on Nov 25, 2008 7:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"Typical Tech"
is getting hyped as a great team, and then going out and laying an egg on national television. That is typical of Tech.
Remember the 2005 texas-Tech game? Same thing.
by Beergut on Nov 25, 2008 11:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Home field advantage
I think all this really shows is how big the home field advantage actually is in the Big 12. OU is clearly a superior team talent-wise, but nearly the same team got completely dominated in Lubbock last season. Tech managed to beat Texas in Lubbock this season with a completely dominant first half, though they did need a lucky (or boneheaded by Texas if you prefer) play as time ran out to win the game. In Dallas, OU and Texas showed how evenly they were matched with no home-field advantage.
I also think its worth noting that while Tech is indeed Tech which puts them in the second tier of the Big 12, A&M is merely A&M and is the worst team in the Big 12 South and would be second or third worst in the North. Glass houses, stones… just sayin. Seriously, you guys got completely blown out by Baylor of all teams.
by hodad on Nov 24, 2008 10:05 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Dear Aggies
Time to get destroyed like Texas Tech. We’re here waiting for you in Austin. I apologize, but we have to have shards of your bones and pools of your blood on our field for style points, due to the vicious nature of the BCS ranking system. Blame Bob Stoops for running up the score against Tech. our apologies in advance.
sincerely yours,
-the teasips
by LonghornsPwn on Nov 24, 2008 10:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
now that is funny
Not bad, Pwn, but I think you should have referenced Missouri instead of Tech, since y’all lost to them on the road, but you did blowout Mizzou at home.
Regardless, quality work there.
by Beergut on Nov 24, 2008 3:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Beergut said, “Similarly, Tech needed overtime to beat an average Nebraska team on the road, and was losing to a poor A&M team after the first half of their game this season.”
Not that it really matters, but the Nebraska vs Tech game was actually in Lubbock.
by jeffinhouston on Nov 24, 2008 5:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Whatever
helps you sleep at night. On the cusp of an 11-win season, 7-1 in conference play. If this is “typical” then tell me the last time that happened. We’ve played even weaker non-conf schedules before, and didn’t end up with double-digit wins.
We’re getting better every year, and it’s not over. Better recruits, better coaching, better facilities, and better funding are on the way. You describe that as “typical” and we see it as “on the rise.” I’ll even throw another phrase out there again – “more with less.” That’s right, PrimeTime – “MORE WITH LESS.”
by djollie111 on Nov 24, 2008 7:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Repeat These 2 Universal Constants After Me
1) Texas Tech will never EVER win a National Championship.
2) No Matter How High Tech Flies, and No Matter High Lubbock, TX gets it’s hopes up
the Texas Telch Red Raiders will ALWAYS lay an egg in the end. (a giant goose egg in this case)
Texas Tech YER DONE
by LonghornsPwn on Nov 25, 2008 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well
better recruits – What top flight blue chip WR have you recruited lately? Crabtree was recruited as an athlete, and was not a top-ranked recruit at that.
Even when you look at QB, Graham Harrell went to Tech b/c A&M already had a commitment from Stephen McGee and texas was pursuing Rhett Bomar, so his only other choice was Baylor if he wanted to stay in state.
Do you even have a highly rated recruit on your defense?
Facilities? You are halfway through renovating your football stadium (nice faux Taco Bell design, btw), and can’t afford to finish it.
by Beergut on Nov 25, 2008 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
