Jump to content

TCU game week.

Wulaw Horn

By Wulaw Horn
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

hiphopfroggyIII
hiphopfroggyIII

speaking of ag, you guys are the most butthurt insecure fanbase out there, it is absolutely hilarious. Trying to fabricate all these reasons to be mad at TCU when the only real reason is that we beat

mdmost
mdmost

I want to kick TCU's ass for no other reason than the annoying bitch who was showing her ass at the Big 12 hearing in the Texas Legislature. 

Wulaw Horn
Wulaw Horn

It’s all about finally exterminating the cockroaches.  you really hope Gary Patterson doesn’t drown our team in his flop sweat.  they’ve owned us because we’ve been coached by a borderline retard

Posted Images

Longboard Horn

Longboard Horn 40149

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Bill Lumbergh said:

Patterson is a good coach and knows their fans are obsessed with beating Texas.

They had a bye just before smu and came out looking completely flat and unprepared. Recall that Arkansas looked completely flat against rice, and it has been stated here that they started prep for Texas during the rice week.

While I get that smu is a dfw rival, Gary gets that his ceiling is winning the big 12, which beating smu does not help you do.

All that to say, they will be ready for us and it's at their house. I say all of that is good. I want to play against a well coached team and see how we do. Were rice and tech just really that bad, or have we really improved that much? Hopefully tcu will help start to answer the question ahead of the rrs.
 

But for Patterson, beating SMU is an expectation. @ztejas and I have stated on here in the past that the Iron Skillet game is a win-win for SMU and no win situation for TCU. If SMU loses they don't care(at least not very much back in the day) since TCU is usually favored. However, if SMU wins, TCU throws a fit and the boosters lose their shit. 

 

Also, we better stay focused on squashing the cockroaches and not look ahead to Oklahoma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BurntOrange&White

BurntOrange&White 39667

Posted
Posted

BobbyBurton

 

Yesterday, most of the media was enthralled with Gary Patterson and his weird war of words with SMU. It was like Patterson was living in an alternate universe, and the level of distraction almost seemed orchestrated, providing cover for an on-field performance against the Mustangs that was as bad as any TCU has had on defense in years.

Did, during a post-game celebration, an SMU player hit a TCU assistant with his helmet or not? By gosh, sheriff Gary said he’s gonna find out, and act tough in doing so. Yet even in the face of evidence to the contrary (SMU officials have now called it a “complete frabrication”), Patterson persisted.

Undeterred, Patterson veered in another direction. None of it would have happened if SMU didn’t attempt to plant the flag, Patterson told media.

It almost seems like this is Patterson’s “I’m a man. I’m 40,” moment. He’s gonna die on the hill on this one.

Yet while Patterson’s gums were flapping, he also said some other things that actually will directly effect the Longhorns game on Saturday.

Patterson said that he expects to have most of his players back this week who have been recovering from injury.

That’s wholly unsurprising. Given the nature of the last decade of the Texas-TCU contest, any Longhorns fan would tell you, the breaks have always seemed to go the Horned Frogs way.

Of course, any reasonable Texas fan would also tell you that Patterson has routinely out-coached every Longhorn coach along the way. It hasn’t been sheer luck. It’s been reality.

The dominance TCU has shown in this series is not happenstance.

They’ve played harder, they’ve played smarter and they’ve been generally coached better. They’ve even often had better players, too.

Whether Texas fans can appreciate those facts or not, it’s the truth, and the final scoreboard has told the tale.

But this is a new coaching staff at Texas and a new decade. It’s time to see if Steve Sarkisian can match wits with the nutty, defensive - in more ways than one - professor, Gary Patterson.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TreatyOak

TreatyOak 16150

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

BobbyBurton

 

Yesterday, most of the media was enthralled with Gary Patterson and his weird war of words with SMU. It was like Patterson was living in an alternate universe, and the level of distraction almost seemed orchestrated, providing cover for an on-field performance against the Mustangs that was as bad as any TCU has had on defense in years.

Did, during a post-game celebration, an SMU player hit a TCU assistant with his helmet or not? By gosh, sheriff Gary said he’s gonna find out, and act tough in doing so. Yet even in the face of evidence to the contrary (SMU officials have now called it a “complete frabrication”), Patterson persisted.

Undeterred, Patterson veered in another direction. None of it would have happened if SMU didn’t attempt to plant the flag, Patterson told media.

It almost seems like this is Patterson’s “I’m a man. I’m 40,” moment. He’s gonna die on the hill on this one.

Yet while Patterson’s gums were flapping, he also said some other things that actually will directly effect the Longhorns game on Saturday.

Patterson said that he expects to have most of his players back this week who have been recovering from injury.

That’s wholly unsurprising. Given the nature of the last decade of the Texas-TCU contest, any Longhorns fan would tell you, the breaks have always seemed to go the Horned Frogs way.

Of course, any reasonable Texas fan would also tell you that Patterson has routinely out-coached every Longhorn coach along the way. It hasn’t been sheer luck. It’s been reality.

The dominance TCU has shown in this series is not happenstance.

They’ve played harder, they’ve played smarter and they’ve been generally coached better. They’ve even often had better players, too.

Whether Texas fans can appreciate those facts or not, it’s the truth, and the final scoreboard has told the tale.

But this is a new coaching staff at Texas and a new decade. It’s time to see if Steve Sarkisian can match wits with the nutty, defensive - in more ways than one - professor, Gary Patterson.

Someone should teach Bobby Burton the difference between “effect” and “affect.”

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad

Chad 1728

Posted
Posted

I don't believe I could handle losing to TCU during what will likely shape up as the final match up against them in the Big 12 leaving the toads with the score board. TCU doesn't look like that good of a team, then again that hasn't stopped them from winning this game in recent history because they've been bad four of the last five years. That fucking Ingram fumble last year is haunting, it blew the game. I want to see Thompson turn in another big performance and squash the toads.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
texifornia

texifornia 56541

Posted
Posted
Just now, Burt Macklin said:


Does anyone know what our S&P+ ranking is? Pretty sure that’s paywalled at ESPN+ now. 

Also I don’t think that factors in all the new healthy starters TCU is adding. 

It doesn't beyond their impact on how they looked coming into the year I believe.

If Avila, Bethley, Daniels and the safety I can't remember are really good to go, this could be a lot spicier than people think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burt Macklin

Burt Macklin 18999

Posted
Posted
Just now, texifornia said:

It doesn't beyond their impact on how they looked coming into the year I believe.

If Avila, Bethley, Daniels and the safety I can't remember are really good to go, this could be a lot spicier than people think.

Their defense will be night and day from Cal/SMU with all those new starters.
 

That’s a lot of their best players and would probably make up 4 of our top 5 defenders if they were on our team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bill Lumbergh

Bill Lumbergh 7171

Posted
Posted
Their defense will be night and day from Cal/SMU with all those new starters.
 
That’s a lot of their best players and would probably make up 4 of our top 5 defenders if they were on our team. 
Yep. Real question is how healthy they actually are. If they're great players at 75%, it's kind of hard to predict how that plays out vs backups at 100%
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32704

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:


Does anyone know what our S&P+ ranking is? Pretty sure that’s paywalled at ESPN+ now. 

Also I don’t think that factors in all the new healthy starters TCU is adding. 

 

Spoiler


TEAM
RATING OFFENSE DEFENSE SPECIAL TEAMS
1. Georgia (4-0) 26.9 37.3 (14) 10.4 (1) 0.0 (58)
2. Alabama (4-0) 26.3 41.4 (4) 15.3 (7) 0.2 (22)
3. Ohio St. (3-1) 24.8 46.2 (1) 21.9 (32) 0.5 (2)
4. Florida (3-1) 22.2 41.7 (3) 19.6 (23) 0.1 (50)
5. Penn St. (4-0) 21.1 35.7 (18) 14.6 (6) 0.0 (61)
6. Oklahoma (4-0) 21.0 40.7 (7) 20.1 (25) 0.4 (4)
7. Clemson (2-2) 20.8 33.4 (34) 12.5 (2) 0.0 (62)
8. Michigan (4-0) 20.4 35.8 (17) 15.8 (8) 0.3 (9)
9. Arizona St. (3-1) 17.3 35.1 (21) 18.2 (16) 0.4 (8)
10. UCLA (3-1) 17.0 41.9 (2) 25.1 (55) 0.2 (24)
11. Wisconsin (1-2) 16.9 30.4 (50) 13.7 (4) 0.2 (29)
12. Texas A&M (3-1) 16.1 30.3 (52) 14.5 (5) 0.3 (13)
13. Ole Miss (3-0) 15.8 41.2 (5) 25.3 (57) -0.1 (93)
14. Cincinnati (3-0) 15.8 33.4 (33) 17.3 (12) -0.3 (121)
15. Iowa St. (2-2) 15.5 33.6 (30) 18.1 (14) 0.0 (69)
16. Arkansas (4-0) 15.4 33.7 (28) 18.4 (17) 0.1 (40)
17. Oregon (4-0) 15.0 37.5 (12) 22.9 (38) 0.4 (3)
18. N. Carolina (2-2) 14.8 41.0 (6) 26.1 (62) -0.1 (84)
19. Coastal Caro. (4-0) 14.5 40.2 (8) 25.3 (56) -0.4 (124)
20. Texas (3-1) 14.0 39.1 (10) 24.9 (52) -0.2 (100)
21. Pittsburgh (3-1) 14.0 34.7 (23) 21.0 (29) 0.2 (16)
22. Notre Dame (4-0) 13.4 31.8 (39) 18.4 (18) 0.0 (68)
23. Utah (2-2) 13.4 29.6 (60) 15.9 (9) -0.3 (120)
24. Maryland (4-0) 13.3 34.5 (24) 21.2 (30) 0.0 (73)
25. Auburn (3-1) 13.0 31.0 (41) 18.4 (19) 0.4 (7)
26. Baylor (4-0) 13.0 29.9 (58) 17.3 (11) 0.3 (11)
27. Liberty (3-1) 12.0 35.6 (19) 23.4 (44) -0.2 (110)
28. Iowa (4-0) 11.8 24.3 (91) 12.8 (3) 0.3 (10)
29. App. St. (3-1) 11.2 33.6 (31) 22.6 (37) 0.2 (20)
30. Michigan St. (4-0) 10.8 30.4 (51) 19.5 (22) -0.1 (78)
31. Miami (2-2) 10.6 32.9 (35) 22.4 (35) 0.1 (39)
32. Tennessee (2-2) 10.6 30.9 (43) 20.5 (27) 0.2 (25)
33. USC (2-2) 10.4 36.5 (16) 26.3 (64) 0.1 (41)
34. Boston Coll. (4-0) 10.2 37.4 (13) 27.7 (75) 0.4 (6)
35. Oklahoma St. (4-0) 9.9 27.9 (70) 17.9 (13) -0.1 (87)
36. Miss. St. (2-2) 9.9 29.1 (63) 19.0 (21) -0.3 (117)
37. UCF (2-1) 9.6 38.7 (11) 29.1 (87) 0.0 (63)
38. Washington (2-2) 9.3 30.2 (56) 20.6 (28) -0.2 (109)
39. LSU (3-1) 8.9 33.6 (32) 24.9 (53) 0.2 (19)
40. SMU (4-0) 8.8 37.2 (15) 28.1 (78) -0.3 (123)
41. Va. Tech (3-1) 8.7 32.2 (37) 23.4 (45) -0.1 (92)
42. NC St. (3-1) 8.6 27.1 (74) 18.2 (15) -0.3 (122)
43. Oregon St. (3-1) 8.6 39.4 (9) 31.1 (95) 0.3 (12)
44. W. Virginia (2-2) 8.6 29.1 (65) 20.5 (26) 0.0 (72)
45. TCU (2-1) 8.3 31.7 (40) 23.2 (41) -0.2 (102)
46. Kentucky (4-0) 8.3 30.2 (55) 22.1 (34) 0.2 (28)
47. Nebraska (2-3) 8.2 30.2 (53) 21.6 (31) -0.4 (126)
48. Texas Tech (3-1) 7.9 34.4 (25) 26.7 (70) 0.2 (17)
49. BYU (4-0) 7.9 35.5 (20) 27.4 (73) -0.2 (108)
50. Kansas St. (3-1) 7.5 30.6 (49) 23.1 (40) 0.0 (55)
51. Marshall (2-2) 7.2 30.0 (57) 22.9 (39) 0.0 (56)
52. Missouri (2-2) 7.0 33.9 (26) 27.5 (74) 0.6 (1)
53. Rutgers (3-1) 6.8 26.9 (75) 20.0 (24) -0.1 (82)
54. Wake Forest (4-0) 6.6 31.9 (38) 25.5 (60) 0.2 (23)
55. UAB (3-1) 6.4 25.3 (86) 18.9 (20) -0.1 (89)
56. Minnesota (2-2) 5.8 30.9 (44) 25.0 (54) -0.1 (88)
57. Boise St. (2-2) 5.6 30.2 (54) 24.8 (50) 0.2 (21)
58. Virginia (2-2) 5.2 33.9 (27) 28.4 (81) -0.3 (119)
59. Fresno St. (4-1) 5.1 34.8 (22) 29.6 (88) -0.1 (98)
60. Purdue (3-1) 4.8 29.1 (64) 24.3 (48) 0.0 (66)
61. Indiana (2-2) 3.2 27.8 (71) 24.5 (49) 0.0 (70)
62. Ga. Tech (2-2) 3.1 26.5 (77) 23.3 (42) -0.1 (91)
63. San Diego St. (3-0) 2.9 18.8 (115) 16.0 (10) 0.1 (36)
64. Army (4-0) 2.8 29.0 (67) 26.3 (65) 0.1 (46)
65. Memphis (3-1) 2.7 29.8 (59) 27.3 (72) 0.2 (30)
66. Tulsa (1-3) 2.6 26.4 (80) 23.7 (47) -0.1 (77)
67. California (1-3) 2.6 30.9 (42) 28.2 (80) -0.1 (95)
68. Louisiana (3-1) 2.6 30.6 (48) 28.2 (79) 0.1 (43)
69. Louisville (3-1) 2.1 33.7 (29) 31.7 (99) 0.2 (27)
70. Syracuse (3-1) 2.1 25.3 (85) 23.3 (43) 0.1 (54)
71. UTSA (4-0) 1.6 27.1 (73) 25.8 (61) 0.3 (15)
72. WMU (3-1) 1.6 30.8 (46) 28.7 (84) -0.5 (128)
73. Florida St. (0-4) 1.1 29.5 (61) 28.4 (83) 0.1 (45)
74. Troy (2-2) 0.9 23.3 (99) 22.4 (36) 0.0 (74)
75. Houston (3-1) 0.7 25.8 (83) 24.9 (51) -0.2 (111)
76. Air Force (3-1) 0.0 26.5 (78) 26.3 (66) -0.1 (90)
77. Tulane (1-3) -0.3 32.4 (36) 32.5 (102) -0.1 (96)
78. Duke (3-1) -0.4 29.2 (62) 29.7 (89) 0.1 (37)
79. Nevada (2-1) -0.4 28.3 (69) 28.7 (85) -0.1 (79)
80. Toledo (2-2) -1.5 22.1 (102) 23.7 (46) 0.1 (49)
81. Wyoming (4-0) -1.7 24.0 (93) 25.5 (59) -0.2 (106)
82. Northwestern (2-2) -1.9 20.2 (108) 22.0 (33) -0.1 (94)
83. Stanford (2-2) -2.1 28.5 (68) 30.7 (94) 0.0 (59)
84. Wash. St. (1-3) -2.2 30.7 (47) 33.0 (104) 0.1 (42)
85. Georgia St. (1-3) -3.0 27.7 (72) 30.7 (93) 0.0 (71)
86. S. Carolina (2-2) -3.5 21.6 (105) 25.3 (58) 0.2 (18)
87. WKU (1-2) -3.9 23.9 (94) 28.1 (77) 0.3 (14)
88. FAU (2-2) -3.9 24.1 (92) 27.9 (76) -0.1 (80)
89. San Jose St. (2-2) -4.7 21.8 (103) 26.6 (69) 0.1 (44)
90. Buffalo (2-2) -5.0 26.4 (79) 31.2 (96) -0.2 (107)
91. CMU (2-2) -5.4 23.6 (97) 28.8 (86) -0.2 (115)
92. Illinois (1-4) -5.6 24.3 (90) 30.3 (91) 0.4 (5)
93. Hawaii (2-3) -6.3 26.5 (76) 33.0 (103) 0.1 (38)
94. Colorado (1-3) -7.2 19.3 (112) 26.5 (68) -0.1 (81)
95. Temple (2-2) -7.5 20.8 (107) 28.4 (82) 0.1 (52)
96. Miami-OH (1-3) -7.7 23.8 (95) 31.6 (97) 0.0 (57)
97. Colorado St. (1-3) -9.2 17.1 (121) 26.3 (63) 0.0 (64)
98. ECU (2-2) -9.5 24.5 (89) 34.1 (108) 0.2 (31)
99. Kent St. (1-3) -9.7 26.2 (82) 35.5 (113) -0.4 (125)
100. So. Miss (1-3) -9.7 17.2 (120) 27.0 (71) 0.0 (65)
101. NIU (2-2) -10.0 25.0 (87) 35.0 (110) 0.0 (76)
102. MTSU (1-3) -10.4 23.4 (98) 33.8 (107) 0.0 (67)
103. EMU (3-1) -10.8 30.8 (45) 41.5 (127) -0.1 (97)
104. Utah St. (3-1) -11.0 25.0 (88) 36.0 (115) 0.0 (60)
105. Charlotte (3-1) -11.3 29.1 (66) 40.4 (122) 0.0 (75)
106. FIU (1-3) -11.7 20.0 (110) 31.6 (98) -0.1 (85)
107. S. Alabama (3-0) -11.7 18.6 (116) 30.6 (92) 0.2 (26)
108. Arizona (0-4) -12.3 22.3 (101) 34.4 (109) -0.2 (103)
109. BGSU (2-2) -12.5 13.7 (130) 26.3 (67) 0.1 (34)
110. La. Tech (2-2) -12.8 23.7 (96) 36.3 (118) -0.2 (99)
111. UTEP (3-1) -13.6 21.7 (104) 35.4 (112) 0.1 (35)
112. N. Texas (1-3) -13.8 19.9 (111) 33.5 (106) -0.2 (101)
113. Ohio (0-4) -14.2 22.5 (100) 36.2 (117) -0.5 (127)
114. Navy (0-3) -14.2 16.1 (124) 30.0 (90) -0.3 (116)
115. Texas St. (1-3) -14.2 26.3 (81) 40.4 (123) -0.1 (86)
116. New Mexico (2-2) -14.2 17.7 (119) 32.0 (100) 0.1 (51)
117. Arkansas St. (1-3) -15.3 25.4 (84) 40.8 (126) 0.1 (32)
118. Ball St. (1-3) -16.6 20.2 (109) 36.9 (119) 0.1 (33)
119. Kansas (1-3) -16.7 21.1 (106) 37.9 (121) 0.1 (53)
120. Ga. Southern (1-3) -16.8 18.4 (118) 35.3 (111) 0.1 (48)
121. ODU (1-3) -16.9 15.7 (125) 32.4 (101) -0.2 (114)
122. USF (1-3) -17.1 18.6 (117) 35.8 (114) 0.1 (47)
123. Rice (1-3) -19.7 14.3 (128) 33.4 (105) -0.6 (130)
124. ULM (2-1) -20.4 16.9 (122) 37.1 (120) -0.2 (104)
125. Vanderbilt (1-3) -21.2 15.2 (126) 36.2 (116) -0.3 (118)
126. UNLV (0-4) -22.0 18.8 (114) 40.7 (125) -0.1 (83)
127. Akron (1-3) -24.1 16.8 (123) 40.7 (124) -0.2 (112)
128. UMass (0-4) -27.4 19.3 (113) 46.2 (130) -0.5 (129)
129. UConn (0-5) -29.3 14.0 (129) 43.0 (128) -0.2 (113)
130. NMSU (1-4) -29.6 14.3 (127) 43.8 (129) -0.2 (105)
 

 

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burt Macklin

Burt Macklin 18999

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

TEAM
RATING OFFENSE DEFENSE SPECIAL TEAMS
1. Georgia (4-0) 26.9 37.3 (14) 10.4 (1) 0.0 (58)
2. Alabama (4-0) 26.3 41.4 (4) 15.3 (7) 0.2 (22)
3. Ohio St. (3-1) 24.8 46.2 (1) 21.9 (32) 0.5 (2)
4. Florida (3-1) 22.2 41.7 (3) 19.6 (23) 0.1 (50)
5. Penn St. (4-0) 21.1 35.7 (18) 14.6 (6) 0.0 (61)
6. Oklahoma (4-0) 21.0 40.7 (7) 20.1 (25) 0.4 (4)
7. Clemson (2-2) 20.8 33.4 (34) 12.5 (2) 0.0 (62)
8. Michigan (4-0) 20.4 35.8 (17) 15.8 (8) 0.3 (9)
9. Arizona St. (3-1) 17.3 35.1 (21) 18.2 (16) 0.4 (8)
10. UCLA (3-1) 17.0 41.9 (2) 25.1 (55) 0.2 (24)
11. Wisconsin (1-2) 16.9 30.4 (50) 13.7 (4) 0.2 (29)
12. Texas A&M (3-1) 16.1 30.3 (52) 14.5 (5) 0.3 (13)
13. Ole Miss (3-0) 15.8 41.2 (5) 25.3 (57) -0.1 (93)
14. Cincinnati (3-0) 15.8 33.4 (33) 17.3 (12) -0.3 (121)
15. Iowa St. (2-2) 15.5 33.6 (30) 18.1 (14) 0.0 (69)
16. Arkansas (4-0) 15.4 33.7 (28) 18.4 (17) 0.1 (40)
17. Oregon (4-0) 15.0 37.5 (12) 22.9 (38) 0.4 (3)
18. N. Carolina (2-2) 14.8 41.0 (6) 26.1 (62) -0.1 (84)
19. Coastal Caro. (4-0) 14.5 40.2 (8) 25.3 (56) -0.4 (124)
20. Texas (3-1) 14.0 39.1 (10) 24.9 (52) -0.2 (100)
21. Pittsburgh (3-1) 14.0 34.7 (23) 21.0 (29) 0.2 (16)
22. Notre Dame (4-0) 13.4 31.8 (39) 18.4 (18) 0.0 (68)
23. Utah (2-2) 13.4 29.6 (60) 15.9 (9) -0.3 (120)
24. Maryland (4-0) 13.3 34.5 (24) 21.2 (30) 0.0 (73)
25. Auburn (3-1) 13.0 31.0 (41) 18.4 (19) 0.4 (7)
26. Baylor (4-0) 13.0 29.9 (58) 17.3 (11) 0.3 (11)
27. Liberty (3-1) 12.0 35.6 (19) 23.4 (44) -0.2 (110)
28. Iowa (4-0) 11.8 24.3 (91) 12.8 (3) 0.3 (10)
29. App. St. (3-1) 11.2 33.6 (31) 22.6 (37) 0.2 (20)
30. Michigan St. (4-0) 10.8 30.4 (51) 19.5 (22) -0.1 (78)
31. Miami (2-2) 10.6 32.9 (35) 22.4 (35) 0.1 (39)
32. Tennessee (2-2) 10.6 30.9 (43) 20.5 (27) 0.2 (25)
33. USC (2-2) 10.4 36.5 (16) 26.3 (64) 0.1 (41)
34. Boston Coll. (4-0) 10.2 37.4 (13) 27.7 (75) 0.4 (6)
35. Oklahoma St. (4-0) 9.9 27.9 (70) 17.9 (13) -0.1 (87)
36. Miss. St. (2-2) 9.9 29.1 (63) 19.0 (21) -0.3 (117)
37. UCF (2-1) 9.6 38.7 (11) 29.1 (87) 0.0 (63)
38. Washington (2-2) 9.3 30.2 (56) 20.6 (28) -0.2 (109)
39. LSU (3-1) 8.9 33.6 (32) 24.9 (53) 0.2 (19)
40. SMU (4-0) 8.8 37.2 (15) 28.1 (78) -0.3 (123)
41. Va. Tech (3-1) 8.7 32.2 (37) 23.4 (45) -0.1 (92)
42. NC St. (3-1) 8.6 27.1 (74) 18.2 (15) -0.3 (122)
43. Oregon St. (3-1) 8.6 39.4 (9) 31.1 (95) 0.3 (12)
44. W. Virginia (2-2) 8.6 29.1 (65) 20.5 (26) 0.0 (72)
45. TCU (2-1) 8.3 31.7 (40) 23.2 (41) -0.2 (102)
46. Kentucky (4-0) 8.3 30.2 (55) 22.1 (34) 0.2 (28)
47. Nebraska (2-3) 8.2 30.2 (53) 21.6 (31) -0.4 (126)
48. Texas Tech (3-1) 7.9 34.4 (25) 26.7 (70) 0.2 (17)
49. BYU (4-0) 7.9 35.5 (20) 27.4 (73) -0.2 (108)
50. Kansas St. (3-1) 7.5 30.6 (49) 23.1 (40) 0.0 (55)
51. Marshall (2-2) 7.2 30.0 (57) 22.9 (39) 0.0 (56)
52. Missouri (2-2) 7.0 33.9 (26) 27.5 (74) 0.6 (1)
53. Rutgers (3-1) 6.8 26.9 (75) 20.0 (24) -0.1 (82)
54. Wake Forest (4-0) 6.6 31.9 (38) 25.5 (60) 0.2 (23)
55. UAB (3-1) 6.4 25.3 (86) 18.9 (20) -0.1 (89)
56. Minnesota (2-2) 5.8 30.9 (44) 25.0 (54) -0.1 (88)
57. Boise St. (2-2) 5.6 30.2 (54) 24.8 (50) 0.2 (21)
58. Virginia (2-2) 5.2 33.9 (27) 28.4 (81) -0.3 (119)
59. Fresno St. (4-1) 5.1 34.8 (22) 29.6 (88) -0.1 (98)
60. Purdue (3-1) 4.8 29.1 (64) 24.3 (48) 0.0 (66)
61. Indiana (2-2) 3.2 27.8 (71) 24.5 (49) 0.0 (70)
62. Ga. Tech (2-2) 3.1 26.5 (77) 23.3 (42) -0.1 (91)
63. San Diego St. (3-0) 2.9 18.8 (115) 16.0 (10) 0.1 (36)
64. Army (4-0) 2.8 29.0 (67) 26.3 (65) 0.1 (46)
65. Memphis (3-1) 2.7 29.8 (59) 27.3 (72) 0.2 (30)
66. Tulsa (1-3) 2.6 26.4 (80) 23.7 (47) -0.1 (77)
67. California (1-3) 2.6 30.9 (42) 28.2 (80) -0.1 (95)
68. Louisiana (3-1) 2.6 30.6 (48) 28.2 (79) 0.1 (43)
69. Louisville (3-1) 2.1 33.7 (29) 31.7 (99) 0.2 (27)
70. Syracuse (3-1) 2.1 25.3 (85) 23.3 (43) 0.1 (54)
71. UTSA (4-0) 1.6 27.1 (73) 25.8 (61) 0.3 (15)
72. WMU (3-1) 1.6 30.8 (46) 28.7 (84) -0.5 (128)
73. Florida St. (0-4) 1.1 29.5 (61) 28.4 (83) 0.1 (45)
74. Troy (2-2) 0.9 23.3 (99) 22.4 (36) 0.0 (74)
75. Houston (3-1) 0.7 25.8 (83) 24.9 (51) -0.2 (111)
76. Air Force (3-1) 0.0 26.5 (78) 26.3 (66) -0.1 (90)
77. Tulane (1-3) -0.3 32.4 (36) 32.5 (102) -0.1 (96)
78. Duke (3-1) -0.4 29.2 (62) 29.7 (89) 0.1 (37)
79. Nevada (2-1) -0.4 28.3 (69) 28.7 (85) -0.1 (79)
80. Toledo (2-2) -1.5 22.1 (102) 23.7 (46) 0.1 (49)
81. Wyoming (4-0) -1.7 24.0 (93) 25.5 (59) -0.2 (106)
82. Northwestern (2-2) -1.9 20.2 (108) 22.0 (33) -0.1 (94)
83. Stanford (2-2) -2.1 28.5 (68) 30.7 (94) 0.0 (59)
84. Wash. St. (1-3) -2.2 30.7 (47) 33.0 (104) 0.1 (42)
85. Georgia St. (1-3) -3.0 27.7 (72) 30.7 (93) 0.0 (71)
86. S. Carolina (2-2) -3.5 21.6 (105) 25.3 (58) 0.2 (18)
87. WKU (1-2) -3.9 23.9 (94) 28.1 (77) 0.3 (14)
88. FAU (2-2) -3.9 24.1 (92) 27.9 (76) -0.1 (80)
89. San Jose St. (2-2) -4.7 21.8 (103) 26.6 (69) 0.1 (44)
90. Buffalo (2-2) -5.0 26.4 (79) 31.2 (96) -0.2 (107)
91. CMU (2-2) -5.4 23.6 (97) 28.8 (86) -0.2 (115)
92. Illinois (1-4) -5.6 24.3 (90) 30.3 (91) 0.4 (5)
93. Hawaii (2-3) -6.3 26.5 (76) 33.0 (103) 0.1 (38)
94. Colorado (1-3) -7.2 19.3 (112) 26.5 (68) -0.1 (81)
95. Temple (2-2) -7.5 20.8 (107) 28.4 (82) 0.1 (52)
96. Miami-OH (1-3) -7.7 23.8 (95) 31.6 (97) 0.0 (57)
97. Colorado St. (1-3) -9.2 17.1 (121) 26.3 (63) 0.0 (64)
98. ECU (2-2) -9.5 24.5 (89) 34.1 (108) 0.2 (31)
99. Kent St. (1-3) -9.7 26.2 (82) 35.5 (113) -0.4 (125)
100. So. Miss (1-3) -9.7 17.2 (120) 27.0 (71) 0.0 (65)
101. NIU (2-2) -10.0 25.0 (87) 35.0 (110) 0.0 (76)
102. MTSU (1-3) -10.4 23.4 (98) 33.8 (107) 0.0 (67)
103. EMU (3-1) -10.8 30.8 (45) 41.5 (127) -0.1 (97)
104. Utah St. (3-1) -11.0 25.0 (88) 36.0 (115) 0.0 (60)
105. Charlotte (3-1) -11.3 29.1 (66) 40.4 (122) 0.0 (75)
106. FIU (1-3) -11.7 20.0 (110) 31.6 (98) -0.1 (85)
107. S. Alabama (3-0) -11.7 18.6 (116) 30.6 (92) 0.2 (26)
108. Arizona (0-4) -12.3 22.3 (101) 34.4 (109) -0.2 (103)
109. BGSU (2-2) -12.5 13.7 (130) 26.3 (67) 0.1 (34)
110. La. Tech (2-2) -12.8 23.7 (96) 36.3 (118) -0.2 (99)
111. UTEP (3-1) -13.6 21.7 (104) 35.4 (112) 0.1 (35)
112. N. Texas (1-3) -13.8 19.9 (111) 33.5 (106) -0.2 (101)
113. Ohio (0-4) -14.2 22.5 (100) 36.2 (117) -0.5 (127)
114. Navy (0-3) -14.2 16.1 (124) 30.0 (90) -0.3 (116)
115. Texas St. (1-3) -14.2 26.3 (81) 40.4 (123) -0.1 (86)
116. New Mexico (2-2) -14.2 17.7 (119) 32.0 (100) 0.1 (51)
117. Arkansas St. (1-3) -15.3 25.4 (84) 40.8 (126) 0.1 (32)
118. Ball St. (1-3) -16.6 20.2 (109) 36.9 (119) 0.1 (33)
119. Kansas (1-3) -16.7 21.1 (106) 37.9 (121) 0.1 (53)
120. Ga. Southern (1-3) -16.8 18.4 (118) 35.3 (111) 0.1 (48)
121. ODU (1-3) -16.9 15.7 (125) 32.4 (101) -0.2 (114)
122. USF (1-3) -17.1 18.6 (117) 35.8 (114) 0.1 (47)
123. Rice (1-3) -19.7 14.3 (128) 33.4 (105) -0.6 (130)
124. ULM (2-1) -20.4 16.9 (122) 37.1 (120) -0.2 (104)
125. Vanderbilt (1-3) -21.2 15.2 (126) 36.2 (116) -0.3 (118)
126. UNLV (0-4) -22.0 18.8 (114) 40.7 (125) -0.1 (83)
127. Akron (1-3) -24.1 16.8 (123) 40.7 (124) -0.2 (112)
128. UMass (0-4) -27.4 19.3 (113) 46.2 (130) -0.5 (129)
129. UConn (0-5) -29.3 14.0 (129) 43.0 (128) -0.2 (113)
130. NMSU (1-4) -29.6 14.3 (127) 43.8 (129) -0.2 (105)

 

 

 

Thanks. It is paywalled, right? 
 

Pretty big divergence between FEI and S&P. We’re 4th in FEI, 20th in SP. A&M is 25th FEI, 12th in S&P. I wonder if that’s due to weighting of preseason projections or just because FEI focuses on per drive efficiency while S&P is more focused on per play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52154

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, texifornia said:

It doesn't beyond their impact on how they looked coming into the year I believe.

If Avila, Bethley, Daniels and the safety I can't remember are really good to go, this could be a lot spicier than people think.

 

33 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Their defense will be night and day from Cal/SMU with all those new starters.
 

That’s a lot of their best players and would probably make up 4 of our top 5 defenders if they were on our team. 

 

24 minutes ago, Elmer_Fudd said:

Not to mention rain/muddy field.

 

24 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Daniels, Bethley, Coleman, and their safety, Carter. I’m pretty sure they all missed SMU game and are supposedly gonna be back 

So we're not going to win by 35 points?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starfleet Command

Starfleet Command 441

Posted
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

Yeah, that’s what I remembered. Do you know how FEI weights it? 

FEI preseason weights tail off much more rapidly than SP+.  Probably explains some of the gap in the offensive rating for Texas.  It would also make sense for Texas' defense to look a little better on a drive-based analysis rather than play-based analysis.

Edited by Starfleet Command
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...