A level of offensive ineptitude rarely seen.

[Palatine]

McCombs isn't the problem. But he has a limited skill set. What is more troubling is that no one else plays. Lyle should not be the sole ball carrier.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Offensive problem for UConn? Yeah, HCPP. Why didn't we go for Mike Leach. PP makes Randy's offense look high powered. Not until UConn looks first to offense (with it's head coach) will they break out of this slump.

 

[BlueDogs]

I don't mean to knock McCombs, but I don't think he is on the same level as Brown, Dixon or Todman. I think maybe mixing some carries in for Delorenzo would be beneficial to our running game.

Not even close. He's an OK back. Misses holes, goes down on first contact, has some moves and is explosive if he can get up field. But that is far and few between. He's reliant on what the Oline gives him and is not going to make his opportunities. So, couple that with a weak Oline and you have ground game problems. Mixing in a fullback like DeLorenzo in power formations would help a ton. It is also provides underneath and flat passing options.

 

[BlueDogs]

The good news is D and ST are very good. That will keep us in a lot games. We just need to get some average play out if the O and we can have a very good season.

 

[ZooCougar]

On any other team, McCombs is a third and long back.

 

[UConnDan97]

On any other team, McCombs is a third and long back.

Please stop. Let's get some perspective, huh? A third-and-long back that just happened to gain almost 1,200 yards last year.

Look, I know the entire fanbase is shaken up a little today, but let's not dog one of our best players...

 

[ZooCougar]

Please stop. Let's get some perspective, huh? A third-and-long back that just happened to gain almost 1,200 yards last year.

Look, I know the entire fanbase is shaken up a little today, but let's not dog one of our best players...

Not dogging. But he won't be getting 1200 yards behind this line. Maybe if he gets 450 carries...

 

[J187Money]

Quite simply: that this defense will be saddled with this offense is a shame. End of story.

 

[UConnDan97]

Not dogging. But he won't be getting 1200 yards behind this line. Maybe if he gets 450 carries...

I hope we are all wrong about the OL and that this thing turns around in a hurry. I am chomping at the bit for next week's game, though. For some reason, I have a really good feeling.... (probably the whiskey)

 

[ZooCougar]

Quite simply: that this defense will be saddled with this offense is a shame. End of story.

Don't worry people will buy tickets to see good defense and bad losses.

 

[UConnDan97]

Don't worry people will buy tickets to see good defense and bad losses.

No, you missed on that one. I see what you were trying to do but keep in mind that I said "win". I always said "win"...

 

[ZooCougar]

I hope we are all wrong about the OL and that this thing turns around in a hurry. I am chomping at the bit for next week's game, though. For some reason, I have a really good feeling.... (probably the whiskey)

I think you should keep drinking.

 

[ZooCougar]

No, you missed on that one. I see what you were trying to do but keep in mind that I said "win". I always said "win"...

You can't have it both ways. People want to see wins and lots of touchdowns. Thats what gets people excited. Anything else is just porno with too much dialogue.

 

[UConnDan97]

I think you should keep drinking.

I'm starting to think you are a "whiskey glass is half-empty" kind of guy...

 

[UConnDan97]

You can't have it both ways. People want to see wins and lots of touchdowns. Thats what gets people excited. Anything else is just porno with too much dialogue.

I don't want it both ways. I said "win". Go back and look at every one of those posts, and I always said "win". And trust me, people will get excited about low-scoring wins, too. For instance. If we found a way to win the game today (either 14-10 regulation or something in OT), we are all spending tonight typing on 11 different threads that are dedicated to each defensive starter. We are talking about how nasty Trevardo is, and we are talking about how Yawin is a man's man.

It's ALWAYS about the win, my friend...

 

[ZooCougar]

This is becoming one of those chicken and egg arguments. But try to be reasonable for a second. Teams that score a lot generally win a lot too. These teams are also more entertaining to watch. This in turn generates more attendance.

And yes, scoring more points in a loss is better than getting almost shut out AT HOME and still losing.

I don't want it both ways. I said "win". Go back and look at every one of those posts, and I always said "win". And trust me, people will get excited about low-scoring wins, too. For instance. If we found a way to win the game today (either 14-10 regulation or something in OT), we are all spending tonight typing on 11 different threads that are dedicated to each defensive starter. We are talking about how nasty Trevardo is, and we are talking about how Yawin is a man's man.

It's ALWAYS about the win, my friend...

 

[UConnDan97]

This is becoming one of those chicken and egg arguments. But try to be reasonable for a second. Teams that score a lot generally win a lot too. These teams are also more entertaining to watch. This in turn generates more attendance.

And yes, scoring more points in a loss is better than getting almost shut out AT HOME and still losing.

If you are talking about which is the more attractive losing strategy, then I guess that scoring more points and losing is slightly more attractive than not scoring a lot of points and still losing. But if you think that being a consistently high-scoring loser is going to put butts in the seats, I've got some swamp land to sell you in Florida.

By the way, what happened to your G.I.Joe avatar? I don't remember what character it was, but I was diggin' it...

 

[ZooCougar]

You're confusing yourself now. Nobody ever said that it's better to be consistently high scoring loser versus wining games 12-10. Nobody.

But a high scoring team that wins will outdraw a low scoring team that wins. 2.7 yards and a cloud of dust doesn't cut it in this marketplace.

If you are talking about which is the more attractive losing strategy, then I guess that scoring more points and losing is slightly more attractive than not scoring a lot of points and still losing. But if you think that being a consistently high-scoring loser is going to put butts in the seats, I've got some swamp land to sell you in Florida.

By the way, what happened to your G.I.Joe avatar? I don't remember what character it was, but I was diggin' it...

 

[ZooCougar]

If you are talking about which is the more attractive losing strategy, then I guess that scoring more points and losing is slightly more attractive than not scoring a lot of points and still losing. But if you think that being a consistently high-scoring loser is going to put butts in the seats, I've got some swamp land to sell you in Florida.

By the way, what happened to your G.I.Joe avatar? I don't remember what character it was, but I was diggin' it...

That was Beachhead from action figure therapy. Go to YouTube and do a search for action figure therapy and watch the honey badger episode. Enjoy.

 

[UConnDan97]

You're confusing yourself now. Nobody ever said that it's better to be consistently high scoring loser versus wining games 12-10. Nobody.

But a high scoring team that wins will outdraw a low scoring team that wins. 2.7 yards and a cloud of dust doesn't cut it in this marketplace.

I'm not confusing myself. You originally said "scoring and wins" puts people in the seats. I said, "You can change that to just 'wins'." Then you kicked off this slightly ridiculous back-and-forth for the two of us, with a little TDH and OrangeMojo help here and there. My point has ALWAYS been about "wins", as I continue to repeat.

By the way, you would have to really work hard to convince me that a team that wins but scores less is outdrawn by a team that wins but scores more. Any school example would do...

 

[ZooCougar]

You have to score to win.

Example. UConn since 2005. Rutgers since 2005. checkmate.

 

[UConnDan97]

You have to score to win.

Example. UConn since 2005. Rutgers since 2005. checkmate.

No kidding, you have to score to win!!! What a revalation! The question is whether or not "scoring a lot" and winning puts more butts in the seats than "scoring a little" and winning puts butts in the seats. Now you wanna hit me with an example again, showing me where ONE team scored a lot and drew more than they did when they scored a little, while winning roughly the same amount of games??? That's the checkmate, my friend, and you haven't played it. Your move.

 

[ZooCougar]

I just did in the previous post.

 

[UConnDan97]

You have to score to win.

Example. UConn since 2005. Rutgers since 2005. checkmate.

I'll help you out with what I'm getting at. Let's take the Texas Tech team (since I brought them up before). Here is a list of their records and offensive / defensive rankings over the last few decades:

http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/teams/tt.shtml

And here is their average and high-game attendance records up to 2007:

http://www.texastech.com/trads/text-m-fb-stad.html

I haven't fully analyzed the data yet, but I'm not seeing a good trend supporting high-scoring prowess leading to higher average attendances unless the record changes a fair amount. For instance, they went from #22 offense (2001, 7-5) to #7 offense (2002, 9-5) and actually lost 3k people average. Their highest average was in 2004 (8-4), when they had a #8 offense and an improvement of their defense to #64 from #101 the previous year. It's difficult to see any trend in this data, other than the fact that they averaged approximately low 40k in the late 90's when they were a .500 club and then that rose to approximately low 50k when they were on average 3 to 4 games above .500.

It is hard to see the trend here, but maybe there's another team (a northeastern team perhaps) that does show the trend, in which case, I have no problem saying "checkmate"...

 

[ZooCougar]

Good. You organize the data. I am going to sleep. I have to drive to Bradley in 5 hours to catch a plane.

The Texas marketplace is a wee bit different than ours as you pointed out. But in CT I am willing to bet that a shiny object gets more attention than the slow dull blade penetrating the shield.

I'll help you out with what I'm getting at. Let's take the Texas Tech team (since I brought them up before). Here is a list of their records and offensive / defensive rankings over the last few decades:

http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/teams/tt.shtml

And here is their average and high-game attendance records up to 2007:

http://www.texastech.com/trads/text-m-fb-stad.html

I haven't fully analyzed the data yet, but I'm not seeing a good trend supporting high-scoring prowess leading to higher average attendances unless the record changes a fair amount. For instance, they went from #22 offense (2001, 7-5) to #7 offense (2002, 9-5) and actually lost 3k people average. Their highest average was in 2004 (8-4), when they had a #8 offense and an improvement of their defense to #64 from #101 the previous year. It's difficult to see any trend in this data, other than the fact that they averaged approximately low 40k in the late 90's when they were a .500 club and then that rose to approximately low 50k when they were on average 3 to 4 games above .500.

It is hard to see the trend here, but maybe there's another team (a northeastern team perhaps) that does show the trend, in which case, I have no problem saying "checkmate"...