Page 3 of 3
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 3:21 am
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
btw...
Goober McTuber wrote:That game was back in August.
time to put to rest this notion of playing better in the 2nd half of the season actually means anything. You get an advantage in terms of polls, yes, but any momentum you might have had late in the year doesn't mean dick come bowl time, when there's a 30+ day layoff.
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 3:37 am
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
I just wasn't banking on them playing a full 4 quarters. Even though I predicted MSU would lose, I was convinced they would hang because Bama never really brought their A game at all this year. Well, they did today, and that was all she wrote. Today's performance was the best I've seen from any team all year. The way Bama played in the first half against Auburn was the way they played for 4 quarters today. It was just their day.
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 3:59 am
by MONEY
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: I was convinced they would hang because Bama never really brought their A game at all this year. Well, they did today, and that was all she wrote. Today's performance was the best I've seen from any team all year.
Or, it could be that the
little 10 plays such a weak OOC schedule that they get teams into bowl games that don't belong there.
A very average PAC team {Arizona State} went on the road to Wisconsin and in all reality should have beaten the Badgers. This Arizona State team was so bad they lost to Cal 50-17 .
The Midwestern schools were extremely OVERRATED this year and it showed.
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:44 am
by Goober McTuber
MONEY wrote:MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: I was convinced they would hang because Bama never really brought their A game at all this year. Well, they did today, and that was all she wrote. Today's performance was the best I've seen from any team all year.
Or, it could be that the
little 10 plays such a weak OOC schedule that they get teams into bowl games that don't belong there.
A very average PAC team {Arizona State} went on the road to Wisconsin and in all reality should have beaten the Badgers.
Shoulda coulda woulda. Shove another windchime up your ass, Nancy.
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:46 am
by Goober McTuber
Papa Willie wrote:MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I just wasn't banking on them playing a full 4 quarters. Even though I predicted MSU would lose, I was convinced they would hang because Bama never really brought their A game at all this year. Well, they did today, and that was all she wrote. Today's performance was the best I've seen from any team all year. The way Bama played in the first half against Auburn was the way they played for 4 quarters today. It was just their day.
Alabama adjusted. MSU didn't.
FTFY.
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:52 am
by Screw_Michigan
Goober McTuber wrote:MONEY wrote:
A very average PAC team {Arizona State} went on the road to Wisconsin and in all reality should have beaten the Badgers.
Shoulda coulda woulda. Shove another windchime up your ass, Nancy.
Rack Gobbles McTubesteak.
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:00 am
by Terry in Crapchester
Goober McTuber wrote:At least we're not Iowa.
Is that the BTPCF forum equivalent of "at least I'm not AP"?
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:04 am
by MONEY
Goober McTuber wrote:MONEY wrote:
A very average PAC team {Arizona State} went on the road to Wisconsin and in all reality should have beaten the Badgers.
Shoulda coulda woulda.
The
little 11 against the
Big Boys today.....
0-5
Simply pathetic.
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:04 am
by Goober McTuber
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Goober McTuber wrote:At least we're not Iowa.
Is that the BTPCF forum equivalent of "at least I'm not AP"?
You're really quick.
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:04 am
by Mace
Terry in Crapchester wrote:Goober McTuber wrote:At least we're not Iowa.
Is that the BTPCF forum equivalent of "at least I'm not AP"?
Was that really necessary? Really, was it? :)
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:05 am
by Goober McTuber
MONEY wrote:Goober McTuber wrote:MONEY wrote:
A very average PAC team {Arizona State} went on the road to Wisconsin and in all reality should have beaten the Badgers.
Shoulda coulda woulda.
The
little 11 against the
Big Boys today.....
0-5
Simply pathetic.
I'm sorry, I might have missed it but how did Cal do in their bowl game?
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:11 am
by MONEY
Goober McTuber wrote:
I'm sorry, I might have missed it but how did Cal do in their bowl game?
They went undefeated and won their 15 straight MNC.
How did the
little 11 do ?
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:18 am
by Goober McTuber
MONEY wrote:Goober McTuber wrote:
I'm sorry, I might have missed it but how did Cal do in their bowl game?
They went undefeated and won their 15 straight MNC.
Now you know why they're "Mythical".
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:28 am
by Dinsdale
It was only 14, asshat.
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:35 am
by Dinsdale
Papa Willie wrote:what you saw today is what I've noticed for a long time now. It's not just the analysts saying that the SEC has faster defenses on average, but it's noticeably different in some cases.
I think my thoughts on the SEC are well known, but I'd agree with this.
Earlier in the season, I mentioned I was frequently around a recent transplant, a diehard Gatordouche and an absolutely devout SECBSH. Really knowledgeable guy, for such a young'un. But he said he always took offense at the other SECBSHs insulting PAC defenses, something like "huh? If you don't play defense in the PAC, even Wazzu is going to drop 50 on you the way those crazy fuckers play out west."
And always said something like "Big12 must be Latin for 'no defense, or some shit.' "
Funny stuff.
But yeah, the better SEC teams like to have lots of outside speed on D.
Honestly - it looked to me like that speed just sorta freaked Sparty out. You don't have to tell me Sparty is better than they were today, because I know they're better. When kids that age see something they aren't used to and can't simulate in practice, it can lead to an implosion.
Basically what we've seen this year is the SEC B(w)est and the SEC LEast. The East was fucking terrible this year. The West? I'm quick becoming an SECWBSH if that's okay with y'all.[/quote]
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:39 am
by MONEY
Dinsdale wrote:It was only 14, asshat.
You're obviously forgetting the game against
Roll Tide a few years ago...
![Image](http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/150902/1938_California_Rose_Bowl.jpg)
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:42 am
by Dinsdale
And 1 more for catching my error... 16.
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:10 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
MONEY wrote:The Midwestern schools were extremely OVERRATED this year and it showed.
I guess it's better to finish under .500 so nobody can call you overrated.
Nice team you got there, dickslap.
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:31 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Dinsdale wrote:MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I wonder if Jsc rooted against his alma mater just to try and win an internet talking point.
I don't give a shit if you went to ITT Technical Institute, you should be homering for them over anyone, including Heaven U, with God, Buddha, and Allah in the backfield, running the Eternal Option.
JSC is deplorable.
Not to speak for JSC, but I think it was quite clear all along that he was pulling for TCU in this game. His "Wisconsin is gonna roll" posts were the rough equivalent of Lou Holtz' old "We're not a very good football team" schtick, meant in this case, I believe, to emphasize the fact that TCU is, at least for the time being, on the wrong side of the BCS divide, and perhaps also meant to dampen his own expectations.
Now, if TCU had been playing LSU in the Sugar Bowl, I think JSC probably would've been pulling for LSU in that event. But then again, there are other posters on this board who would do something akin to that under similar circumstances.
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:44 pm
by Felix
not quite so easy to roll up 70 pts. on a team that can actually play defense...
the whisky offensive linemen are fucking giants-TCU just beat them with speed
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 8:17 pm
by SoCalTrjn
TCU's cheerleaders have to be the best looking cheer squad in the NCAA
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 8:31 pm
by Mace
Felix wrote:not quite so easy to roll up 70 pts. on a team that can actually play defense.
You're right, and that point was proven during the regular season.
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 8:38 pm
by MgoBlue-LightSpecial
Felix wrote:not quite so easy to roll up 70 pts. on a team that can actually play defense...
That, and a team that actually has its starting qb.
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 2:33 pm
by Goober McTuber
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Felix wrote:not quite so easy to roll up 70 pts. on a team that can actually play defense...
That, and a team that actually has its starting qb.
Most of the teams we beat had their starting quarterbacks. At least we showed up for
our game.
Re: Rose Bowl
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:35 pm
by Mikey
Watching the Rose Bowl last weekend I was impressed with TCUs game, but even moreso with how the players, coaches and everybody handled themselves before, during and after the game in an atmosphere where they could have bitched and complained to no end about deserving a shot at the MNC.
This morning I was reminded of this ad that ran on Monday in the LA Times (and I think the local Pasadena rag). I know...a calculated PR move, but who cares.
So, one more time I've gotta RACK TCU. A totally class act.
sin
A converted TCU fan
Go Frogs
![Image](http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs774.ash1/166416_478344456156_500076156_6421424_4650012_n.jpg)