A level of offensive ineptitude rarely seen. | Page 2 | The Boneyard

A level of offensive ineptitude rarely seen.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ZooCougar said:
On any other team, McCombs is a third and long back.
Expand ...

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...
 
UConnDan97 said:
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...
Expand ...

Not dogging. But he won't be getting 1200 yards behind this line. Maybe if he gets 450 carries...
 
Quite simply: that this defense will be saddled with this offense is a shame. End of story.
 
ZooCougar said:
Not dogging. But he won't be getting 1200 yards behind this line. Maybe if he gets 450 carries...
Expand ...

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)
 
J187Money said:
Quite simply: that this defense will be saddled with this offense is a shame. End of story.
Expand ...

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

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"...
 
.-.
UConnDan97 said:
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)
Expand ...

I think you should keep drinking.
 
UConnDan97 said:
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"...
Expand ...

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.
 
ZooCougar said:
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.
Expand ...

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...
 
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.


UConnDan97 said:
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...
Expand ...
 
ZooCougar said:
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.
Expand ...

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...
 
.-.
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.

UConnDan97 said:
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...
Expand ...
 
UConnDan97 said:
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...
Expand ...

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.
 
ZooCougar said:
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.
Expand ...

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...
 
You have to score to win.

Example. UConn since 2005. Rutgers since 2005. checkmate.
 
ZooCougar said:
You have to score to win.

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

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 said:
You have to score to win.

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

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"...
 
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.

UConnDan97 said:
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"...
Expand ...
 
ZooCougar said:
But in CT I am willing to bet that a shiny object gets more attention than the slow dull blade penetrating the shield.
Expand ...

You know this may become my new tagline...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,321
Messages
4,563,615
Members
10,458
Latest member
Liam Rainst


Top Bottom