The 2008 Big XII Thread - Page 2

Gchu83 · 05-05-2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adschofield

So how again will our schedule last year affect our talent this year?

I don't know how to put this w/o soundling like I'm bashing KU because I was definitely rooting for y'all during both championship games.

But while it doesn't affect the talent, an easy schedule can make a team look a lot better than they actually might be. Like I said, not trying to bash but it'll be interesting when KU has to take on the Top 3 teams (usually) in the South.

adschofield · 05-05-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gchu83

I don't know how to put this w/o soundling like I'm bashing KU because I was definitely rooting for y'all during both championship games.

But while it doesn't affect the talent, an easy schedule can make a team look a lot better than they actually might be. Like I said, not trying to bash but it'll be interesting when KU has to take on the Top 3 teams (usually) in the South.

No offense taken, but does everyone forgot that we beat Virginia Tech? They were the #3 team in the nation...

DragonFireKai · 05-05-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adschofield

No offense taken, but does everyone forgot that we beat Virginia Tech? They were the #3 team in the nation...

And Hawaii was undefeated at one point too. The ACC was pretty much an extra Mid Major conference last season.

kmartin575 · 05-05-2008, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adschofield

No offense taken, but does everyone forgot that we beat Virginia Tech? They were the #3 team in the nation...

Teams like Boston College, South Florida, Missouri, etc. all were ranked as high or higher than #3 last year. Being the #3 team means nothing. Virginia Tech had no offense.

Brent · 05-06-2008, 11:09 PM

So, I found out today from a football player that Jerrod Johnson was better than McGee in almost every practice and the coaches thought he was as good or better than McGee in the spring game... I wonder if they will give the job to Johnson or make it McGee's to lose. I hope that Johnson takes the job, he's a beast of an athlete and has a hell of an arm. Much better than McGee's, I think.

adschofield · 05-07-2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmartin575

Teams like Boston College, South Florida, Missouri, etc. all were ranked as high or higher than #3 last year. Being the #3 team means nothing. Virginia Tech had no offense.

Being the #3 team in the nation means nothing? Are you kidding me? Stop being a homer, we beat one of the best teams in the country

holt_bruce81 · 05-09-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adschofield

Being the #3 team in the nation means nothing? Are you kidding me? Stop being a homer, we beat one of the best teams in the country

Eh, Virginia Tech was a solid win, but their no where close to being one of the best teams in the country.

adschofield · 05-09-2008, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holt_bruce81

Eh, Virginia Tech was a solid win, but their no where close to being one of the best teams in the country.

Then who exactly was? Just Ohio State and LSU?

nfrillman · 05-10-2008, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adschofield

Then who exactly was? Just Ohio State and LSU?

M-I-Z...Z-O-U!!!!!!! Sorry, but you asked.

I think there were probably about 8 teams last year that were comparable though. A playoff last season would have been amazing because it would force teams to prove their worth by beating more than just one team that they may just match up very well against, or their opponent matching up poorly to them. My example of this is the Oklahoma-West Virginia game. Oklahoma was all power and WVU was all speed, WVU's speed won out. But I also feel that WVU proved to be the worst possible matchup for OU because if OU was playing a team that was a little more power and a little less speed, but still good like LSU or OSU for example, I think OU would have had a much better chance than against WVU, simply because of matchups. On the other hand, WVU probably would not have faired as well against a team that was more equal in power and speed. Not that they would have lost because we can't know, but it would have been a less favorable matchup because their speed wouldn't be as big a factor.

So, in conclusion...........M-I-Z...Z-O-U!!!!!

Brent · 05-13-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nfrillman

My example of this is the Oklahoma-West Virginia game. Oklahoma was all power and WVU was all speed, WVU's speed won out. But I also feel that WVU proved to be the worst possible matchup for OU because if OU was playing a team that was a little more power and a little less speed, but still good like LSU or OSU for example, I think OU would have had a much better chance than against WVU, simply because of matchups. On the other hand, WVU probably would not have faired as well against a team that was more equal in power and speed. Not that they would have lost because we can't know, but it would have been a less favorable matchup because their speed wouldn't be as big a factor.

You're just bitter OU destroyed Mizzou in the championship

DragonFireKai · 05-13-2008, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adschofield

Then who exactly was? Just Ohio State and LSU?

Let's see, USC, OSU, UGA, LSU, WVU, Mizzou, Kansas, OU, and Texas, were all clearly better teams. I'd argue for several other teams too. VT was a second tier team in a second tier conference.

nfrillman · 05-13-2008, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrentN

You're just bitter OU destroyed Mizzou in the championship

Ummm, not really. If you don't understand that certain teams match up better and certain teams match up worse then you haven't been watching sports very long. What about that post didn't make sense. Would Oklahoma not be better suited to face a team with less speed and more power than WVU? Would WVU not be worse suited to face a team with more speed and less power than OU? It's pretty basic, OU would still be stronger than another team and the speed difference would not be as significant, while WVU would still probably be less stout than a different team and WVU's speed edge wouldn't be as big............meaning it's a worse matchup. It's no knock on WVU, it's just an example of how match ups can effect teams and games. Not everyone's statements come from an argumentative or homeristic standpoint, good and bad match ups are just part of the game.

Brent · 05-14-2008, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nfrillman

Ummm, not really. If you don't understand that certain teams match up better and certain teams match up worse then you haven't been watching sports very long. What about that post didn't make sense.

It was a joke. Relax.

nfrillman · 05-15-2008, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrentN

It was a joke. Relax.

Oh, well touche' then sir. I guess I was in an argumentative mood, and boy did I argue.

Brent · 05-15-2008, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nfrillman

Oh, well touche' then sir. I guess I was in an argumentative mood, and boy did I argue.

It's okay, two of my closest friends are Mizzou students and argue about them all the time.

LonghornsLegend · 05-23-2008, 03:09 PM

I certainly don't have us winning the conference this year, but you can't count us out completely, because we have the talent to do it...I just don't have faith in McCoy, if he takes that leap as a leader and in progression he could lead u to a big XII title, but he is so u and down...One game he looks like a stud, then the next week vs an inferior team he will get hit hard in the 1st qt and play scared from then on.

I have us beating Kansas, but losing to Missori, don't think Kansas has enough to beat us, and I highly doubt we lose to A&M again, that series is usually pretty back and forth, I'm sure they want to beat us again no problem with that, I just doubt it happens again in Colts junior year.

Gchu83 · 05-23-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

I certainly don't have us winning the conference this year, but you can't count us out completely, because we have the talent to do it...I just don't have faith in McCoy, if he takes that leap as a leader and in progression he could lead u to a big XII title, but he is so u and down...One game he looks like a stud, then the next week vs an inferior team he will get hit hard in the 1st qt and play scared from then on.

I have us beating Kansas, but losing to Missori, don't think Kansas has enough to beat us, and I highly doubt we lose to A&M again, that series is usually pretty back and forth, I'm sure they want to beat us again no problem with that, I just doubt it happens again in Colts junior year.

Colt can't possibly play any worse than he did last season and I think the 2 things that really hurt Colt last season was an inconsistent OL and trying to do too much. I think the OL will be better this season and hopefully Colt will settle down and play more under control.

But I think the defense is where we'll see the most improvement. A 110th ranked pass defense is unexcusable and I think Muschamp will do like Chizik did his first season here and put together a sick D.

cdub11 · 05-29-2008, 09:18 AM

i think ou is the front runner in the south division, but i dont think texas is far behind, having missouri and texas a&m @ home helps

tigerz2350 · 05-30-2008, 03:27 PM

this is a reply to adschofield from the other thread that got locked... I never compared Missouri's in-state talent to Texas or Florida, but it is by far better than any other state in the big XII with the exception of Texas and maybe Oklahoma. Just as a side note, we did sign 7 of the top 10 players in the state last year. As for this year, Nathan is not #1 in the state... he is #3. We already have #2 commited (top 100 DT Sheldon Richardson) and have a very good shot at getting #1 Ronnie Wingo.

adschofield · 05-30-2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigerz2350

this is a reply to adschofield from the other thread that got locked... I never compared Missouri's in-state talent to Texas or Florida, but it is by far better than any other state in the big XII with the exception of Texas and maybe Oklahoma. Just as a side note, we did sign 7 of the top 10 players in the state last year. As for this year, Nathan is not #1 in the state... he is #3. We already have #2 commited (top 100 DT Sheldon Richardson) and have a very good shot at getting #1 Ronnie Wingo.

I have seen both Ronnie Wingo and Nate Scheelhasse play, and I can say that Scheelhasse is easily the better of the two. Then again I'm a Rockhurst homer :D

But Scheelhasse will be #1 before it's all over.

adschofield · 05-30-2008, 03:46 PM

I really want to beat Texas this year since the zebras basically gave them the game in Lawrence a couple years back.

kmartin575 · 05-30-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adschofield

I have seen both Ronnie Wingo and Nate Scheelhasse play, and I can say that Scheelhasse is easily the better of the two. Then again I'm a Rockhurst homer :D

But Scheelhasse will be #1 before it's all over.

Another comment in response to your post in the other thread stating most of the in-state talent in Missouri will go to bigger schools. Oh really? Then why did 7 of the top 10 ranked players in the state of Missouri for 2008 commit to Missouri? Sure sounds like you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

And yes, Kansas does lose most of their in state recruits. Rivals.com's 2008 top 15 players for Kansas includes only 4 who have committed to Kansas.

tigerz2350 · 05-30-2008, 06:30 PM

It really is hard to tell who is better because they play completely different positions, but Wingo and Richardson will both be rated higher than Nathan. I think Nathan will make a good saftey at Oklahoma.

adschofield · 05-31-2008, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmartin575

Another comment in response to your post in the other thread stating most of the in-state talent in Missouri will go to bigger schools. Oh really? Then why did 7 of the top 10 ranked players in the state of Missouri for 2008 commit to Missouri? Sure sounds like you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

And yes, Kansas does lose most of their in state recruits. Rivals.com's 2008 top 15 players for Kansas includes only 4 who have committed to Kansas.

You missed my point...I meant that if big time players will usually spurn their home schools and go to the big time programs...Missouri hasn't really had a case of this because it hasn't had a player as hyped/talented as the Brown brothers

adschofield · 05-31-2008, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigerz2350

It really is hard to tell who is better because they play completely different positions, but Wingo and Richardson will both be rated higher than Nathan. I think Nathan will make a good saftey at Oklahoma.

Safety? He's made it clear to the media outlets that he wants to play QB, and I've heard him personally say he wants to play QB. The only school on his list that still considers him a ATH is OU (who might change on that position later when they finish breaking down the film). Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Stanford, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Nebraska are all considering him a QB. For the record, Nate's top 4 is OU, KU, Iowa, and Nebraska.

Have you seen him play? Nate has a huge arm...you might want to look him up on youtube.