Law School Discussion

College Football

creM of the crop

Re: College Football
« Reply #330 on: July 27, 2005, 02:45:11 PM »
one more post!!

and I'm not worried.  I've got extra.

 ;)

LittleRussianPrincess, Esq.

  • ****
  • 1986
  • Hopelessly devoted...to the Tennessee Vols!
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #331 on: July 27, 2005, 03:50:54 PM »
Rocky Top is the best fight song.  HTH.

Re: College Football
« Reply #332 on: July 27, 2005, 08:23:55 PM »

You're forgetting a few things, bud.....remember back to three years ago, when USC won the orange bowl and ended up 4th in the rankings?  THe year that Carson won the Heisman? 


A little off topic..but Carson Palmer didn't deserve the Heisman that year...Larry Johnson did. He would have shattered the NCAA single season rushing record if Paterno allowed him to pad his stats. He ran behind a very average O-Line and barely played games past halftime. His only criticism was that due to an underachieving O-Line, he didnt have 100 yard games against Ohio State and Michigan (but still racked up over 100 all-purpose yards), which was more of a consequence of a underperforming O-Line. Brad Banks should have been a #2 that year.

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #333 on: July 27, 2005, 09:09:23 PM »

You're forgetting a few things, bud.....remember back to three years ago, when USC won the orange bowl and ended up 4th in the rankings?  THe year that Carson won the Heisman? 


A little off topic..but Carson Palmer didn't deserve the Heisman that year...Larry Johnson did. He would have shattered the NCAA single season rushing record if Paterno allowed him to pad his stats. He ran behind a very average O-Line and barely played games past halftime. His only criticism was that due to an underachieving O-Line, he didnt have 100 yard games against Ohio State and Michigan (but still racked up over 100 all-purpose yards), which was more of a consequence of a underperforming O-Line. Brad Banks should have been a #2 that year.

It is hard to compare RBs and QBs so I can understand the disagreement, but you were saying that Larry Johnson WOULD have BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ... sorry my ears turn off if the bs meter goes off the chart.  Larry Johnson woulda coulda shoulda but didnt.  You think he should have won an award for something that might have happened ???, but fortunately you were in the minority ;) Maybe USC woulda been in the championship game if our kicker could make an extra point and Mike Williams woulda caught at least one more of the balls that he dropped agaisnt K-State ... If my aunt had balls she woulda been my uncle; so what?
AND
 R U serious?  ::)
If Brad Banks was so good why did he look like crap against USC? Brad Banks was good enough not to even get drafted  ::)

HTH

Intuition

  • ****
  • 712
  • We wander down darkened pathways in a daze.
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #334 on: July 27, 2005, 09:25:46 PM »
Quote
Brad Banks was good enough not to even get drafted

The heisman is for the best college football player. Not the best professional prospect. Ask Danny Wuerffel. Ask Eric Crouch. (You might already realize that wasn't a good argument since you used the eyeroll, but I'm not sure.)

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #335 on: July 27, 2005, 09:33:59 PM »
Quote
Brad Banks was good enough not to even get drafted

The heisman is for the best college football player. Not the best professional prospect. Ask Danny Wuerffel. Ask Eric Crouch. (You might already realize that wasn't a good argument since you used the eyeroll, but I'm not sure.)
It just seems that something is severely wrong if the very BEST PLAYER in college goes undrafted, doesnt it?  It is not like this in any other level of the game or any other sport.  The best high school player may not be the best college player, but he goes to a D-I team and generally plays well.
The system may place too much of an emphasis on stats and not enough on athletic ability demonstrated.  College scouts care about stats as a general reference point, but are much more interested in the qualities that make the athlete, and that is what they ultimately base their reccommendations on, wouldnt you agree?

Re: College Football
« Reply #336 on: July 27, 2005, 09:38:34 PM »

You're forgetting a few things, bud.....remember back to three years ago, when USC won the orange bowl and ended up 4th in the rankings?  THe year that Carson won the Heisman? 


A little off topic..but Carson Palmer didn't deserve the Heisman that year...Larry Johnson did. He would have shattered the NCAA single season rushing record if Paterno allowed him to pad his stats. He ran behind a very average O-Line and barely played games past halftime. His only criticism was that due to an underachieving O-Line, he didnt have 100 yard games against Ohio State and Michigan (but still racked up over 100 all-purpose yards), which was more of a consequence of a underperforming O-Line. Brad Banks should have been a #2 that year.

It is hard to compare RBs and QBs so I can understand the disagreement, but you were saying that Larry Johnson WOULD have BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ... sorry my ears turn off if the bs meter goes off the chart.  Larry Johnson woulda coulda shoulda but didnt.  You think he should have won an award for something that might have happened ???, but fortunately you were in the minority ;) Maybe USC woulda been in the championship game if our kicker could make an extra point and Mike Williams woulda caught at least one more of the balls that he dropped agaisnt K-State ... If my aunt had balls she woulda been my uncle; so what?
AND
 R U serious?  ::)
If Brad Banks was so good why did he look like darn against USC? Brad Banks was good enough not to even get drafted  ::)

HTH

I understand your coulda woulda shoulda remark, but there's a few problems I have with your argument. Carson Palmer had a much better surrounding cast. What if he had mediocre receivers or a mediocre O-Line? Instead he had Mike Williams, a line that could give him 10 seconds in the pocket, and a dominant pass catching TE. With one of those ingredients missing, the stats wouldn't have been there. I know its purely speculative, but could you really disagree with that? Also, if Palmer was taken out at halftime during most of his games, he wouldn't have scored as many TD's or threw for as many yards.
Secondly, Johnson played on a team with only one significant receiving threat and a mediocre O-Line, and the only games he didn't dominate were against Ohio State and Michigan, a national champ and another team in the top 10. Also, if he was allowed to run rampant for the entire game instead of one-half, the rushing record would have easily been broken. Not to mention that teams lined up 8 guys in the box almost at all times...But again, its another woulda coulda shoulda.
And regarding Brad Banks...heisman voting came before he played USC, so that game is irrelevant. He took a team that played like sh*t in the first two games and went undefeated after that.
Since when did Heisman winners have to be drafted, or be good in the NFL?...Banks went undrafted b/c of his height. He had a rocket, but was only 5'10' or 5'11'. Did you forget about Charlie Ward? He was incredible, but didn't have the height to be a NFL quarterback. Look at Jason White..
And if your aunt had balls...then your uncle would be married to a hermaphrodite

ahoipkem

Re: College Football
« Reply #337 on: July 27, 2005, 09:56:14 PM »
Sooooo longggggg.....

(unfortunately that's all that michiganders got with any significant length) ::)

whoa whoa whoa...what is this unprovoked insulting of Michigan men? That low blow was definitely uncalled for. I'm sorry if your personal experience may be less than stellar, but lets not generalize  ;)

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #338 on: July 28, 2005, 12:36:08 PM »

You're forgetting a few things, bud.....remember back to three years ago, when USC won the orange bowl and ended up 4th in the rankings?  THe year that Carson won the Heisman? 


A little off topic..but Carson Palmer didn't deserve the Heisman that year...Larry Johnson did. He would have shattered the NCAA single season rushing record if Paterno allowed him to pad his stats. He ran behind a very average O-Line and barely played games past halftime. His only criticism was that due to an underachieving O-Line, he didnt have 100 yard games against Ohio State and Michigan (but still racked up over 100 all-purpose yards), which was more of a consequence of a underperforming O-Line. Brad Banks should have been a #2 that year.

It is hard to compare RBs and QBs so I can understand the disagreement, but you were saying that Larry Johnson WOULD have BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ... sorry my ears turn off if the bs meter goes off the chart.  Larry Johnson woulda coulda shoulda but didnt.  You think he should have won an award for something that might have happened ???, but fortunately you were in the minority ;) Maybe USC woulda been in the championship game if our kicker could make an extra point and Mike Williams woulda caught at least one more of the balls that he dropped agaisnt K-State ... If my aunt had balls she woulda been my uncle; so what?
AND
 R U serious?  ::)
If Brad Banks was so good why did he look like darn against USC? Brad Banks was good enough not to even get drafted  ::)

HTH

I understand your coulda woulda shoulda remark, but there's a few problems I have with your argument. Carson Palmer had a much better surrounding cast. What if he had mediocre receivers or a mediocre O-Line? Instead he had Mike Williams, a line that could give him 10 seconds in the pocket, and a dominant pass catching TE. With one of those ingredients missing, the stats wouldn't have been there. I know its purely speculative, but could you really disagree with that? Also, if Palmer was taken out at halftime during most of his games, he wouldn't have scored as many TD's or threw for as many yards.
Secondly, Johnson played on a team with only one significant receiving threat and a mediocre O-Line, and the only games he didn't dominate were against Ohio State and Michigan, a national champ and another team in the top 10. Also, if he was allowed to run rampant for the entire game instead of one-half, the rushing record would have easily been broken. Not to mention that teams lined up 8 guys in the box almost at all times...But again, its another woulda coulda shoulda.
And regarding Brad Banks...heisman voting came before he played USC, so that game is irrelevant. He took a team that played like sh*t in the first two games and went undefeated after that.
Since when did Heisman winners have to be drafted, or be good in the NFL?...Banks went undrafted b/c of his height. He had a rocket, but was only 5'10' or 5'11'. Did you forget about Charlie Ward? He was incredible, but didn't have the height to be a NFL quarterback. Look at Jason White..
And if your aunt had balls...then your uncle would be married to a hermaphrodite
I know, I know, NFL=/=College football.  But Banks was not that good and I still think that Palmer deserved the trophy because his passes were on the money, between defenders, over the shoulder, in only a place that the receiver could get to, and always in stride. 

Heisman voting should be broken down my category since it is impossible to tell who is better when comparing an elite RB and QB

TrojanChispas

  • ****
  • 4667
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: College Football
« Reply #339 on: July 28, 2005, 12:37:08 PM »
AND I reiterate, in no other sport or level of football does the BEST PLAYER not move onto the next level