I mean really rediculous. And Oh yeah Memphis get a football team that is not constantly embarrassed by Belt teams or shut your trap. I don't care what conference you are in Memphis football is pond scum.

Just cause their started by CUSA fans doesn't mean that gives you a free ride to just go in and keep talking about your school

(01-16-2012 11:47 AM)theATLDawg Wrote:  I mean really rediculous. And Oh yeah Memphis get a football team that is not constantly embarrassed by Belt teams or shut your trap. I don't care what conference you are in Memphis football is pond scum.

(01-16-2012 11:57 AM)PATiger Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 11:47 AM)theATLDawg Wrote:  I mean really rediculous. And Oh yeah Memphis get a football team that is not constantly embarrassed by Belt teams or shut your trap. I don't care what conference you are in Memphis football is pond scum.

when these threads open the door for Memphis fans to openly trash my school than yes it does. I mean really lets not talk about Tech. Lets talk about how I have seen Jr High Schools with better football programs than Memphis.

and please Memphis football lives on PLANET FAIL

(01-16-2012 12:07 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 11:57 AM)PATiger Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 11:47 AM)theATLDawg Wrote:  I mean really rediculous. And Oh yeah Memphis get a football team that is not constantly embarrassed by Belt teams or shut your trap. I don't care what conference you are in Memphis football is pond scum.

when these threads open the door for Memphis fans to openly trash my school than yes it does. I mean really lets not talk about Tech. Lets talk about how I have seen Jr High Schools with better football programs than Memphis.

We're still better than you and always will be.

(01-16-2012 12:10 PM)PATiger Wrote:  We're still better than you and always will be.

Incorrect. Tech would have beat Memphis by 50 this year. Tech football is in much better shape overall than Memphis football.

I support them as a member. I want good football. I don't care about some shatty team's market.

(01-16-2012 01:20 PM)eaglfan81 Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 12:10 PM)PATiger Wrote:  We're still better than you and always will be.

Incorrect. Tech would have beat Memphis by 50 this year. Tech football is in much better shape overall than Memphis football.

I support them as a member. I want good football. I don't care about some shatty team's market.

If you want good football, then you don't want La Tech because they suck. We just hired the OC of the team that just beat them.

(01-16-2012 01:26 PM)PATiger Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 01:20 PM)eaglfan81 Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 12:10 PM)PATiger Wrote:  We're still better than you and always will be.

Incorrect. Tech would have beat Memphis by 50 this year. Tech football is in much better shape overall than Memphis football.

I support them as a member. I want good football. I don't care about some shatty team's market.

If you want good football, then you don't want La Tech because they suck. We just hired the OC of the team that just beat them.

I saw Tech play in person once and on tv a few times this year. They far from suck.

Good luck with your new coach. He has his work cut out for him for sure.

(01-16-2012 01:20 PM)eaglfan81 Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 12:10 PM)PATiger Wrote:  We're still better than you and always will be.

Incorrect. Tech would have beat Memphis by 50 this year. Tech football is in much better shape overall than Memphis football.

I support them as a member. I want good football. I don't care about some shatty team's market.

We'll never know who would win a Tech/Tiger game or by how much, but 50 is a big number.

All conference member struggle in aspects of their programs at times and we're certainly facing big-time challenges with football right now.

However, 50 is a pretty big stretch.

FWIW, if we are required to expand, Tech is a legitimate candidate who brings assets to the table.

(01-16-2012 01:20 PM)eaglfan81 Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 12:10 PM)PATiger Wrote:  We're still better than you and always will be.

Incorrect. Tech would have beat Memphis by 50 this year. Tech football is in much better shape overall than Memphis football.

I support them as a member. I want good football. I don't care about some shatty team's market.

so why does tech have 3 bowls in the last decade and Memphis has 5?

(01-16-2012 02:29 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  FWIW, if we are required to expand, Tech is a legitimate candidate who brings assets to the table.

They bring worse football than Memphis, no basketball, no market, no endowment, and no athletic budget.

Other than women's basketball (which currently has an RPI of 215--Memphis is at 123) and a drivable road trip for USM, what "assets" does Tech bring as a "legitimate" candidate?

OP is a moron and should not be welcome back on our board. You don't talk **** about a conference school on our board, especially when that school has been to at least twice as many bowls as you in the last 10 years.

(01-16-2012 02:29 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 01:20 PM)eaglfan81 Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 12:10 PM)PATiger Wrote:  We're still better than you and always will be.

Incorrect. Tech would have beat Memphis by 50 this year. Tech football is in much better shape overall than Memphis football.

I support them as a member. I want good football. I don't care about some shatty team's market.

We'll never know who would win a Tech/Tiger game or by how much, but 50 is a big number.

All conference member struggle in aspects of their programs at times and we're certainly facing big-time challenges with football right now.

However, 50 is a pretty big stretch.

FWIW, if we are required to expand, Tech is a legitimate candidate who brings assets to the table.

A good indication is that we both played Mississippi State this year. They beat Memphis by 45 in Memphis. Tech tied them 20-20 in Starkville.

Sagarin has Tech as a 36 point favorite in Ruston and a 30 point favorite in Memphis.

Based on this, Tech would probably win by 30-50 points.

(01-16-2012 02:31 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 01:20 PM)eaglfan81 Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 12:10 PM)PATiger Wrote:  We're still better than you and always will be.

Incorrect. Tech would have beat Memphis by 50 this year. Tech football is in much better shape overall than Memphis football.

I support them as a member. I want good football. I don't care about some shatty team's market.

so why does tech have 3 bowls in the last decade and Memphis has 5?

WAC: tougher league with 3 bowl tie-ins.
CUSA: easier league with 6 bowl tie-ins.

(01-16-2012 04:41 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 02:31 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 01:20 PM)eaglfan81 Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 12:10 PM)PATiger Wrote:  We're still better than you and always will be.

Incorrect. Tech would have beat Memphis by 50 this year. Tech football is in much better shape overall than Memphis football.

I support them as a member. I want good football. I don't care about some shatty team's market.

so why does tech have 3 bowls in the last decade and Memphis has 5?

WAC: tougher league with 3 bowl tie-ins.
CUSA: easier league with 6 bowl tie-ins.

You get more ignorant with every post.

1 BIG 12 (A) = 83.61 82.83 ( 1) 10 83.08 ( 1)
2 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 80.88 81.60 ( 2) 12 81.27 ( 2)
3 BIG TEN (A) = 75.55 75.30 ( 4) 12 75.49 ( 3)
4 PAC-12 (A) = 74.72 75.38 ( 3) 12 75.14 ( 4)
5 BIG EAST (A) = 72.41 72.86 ( 5) 8 72.82 ( 5)
6 I-A INDEPENDENTS (A) = 71.92 71.49 ( 6) 4 71.59 ( 6)
7 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 71.23 71.03 ( 7) 12 71.06 ( 7)
8 CONFERENCE USA (A) = 66.04 65.79 ( 9) 12 65.98 ( 8)
9 MOUNTAIN WEST (A) = 65.86 66.22 ( 8) 8 65.85 ( 9)
10 WESTERN ATHLETIC (A) = 63.73 63.94 ( 10) 8 63.92 ( 10)
11 MID-AMERICAN (A) = 63.53 63.31 ( 11) 13 63.51 ( 11)
12 SUN BELT (A) = 58.85 58.30 ( 13) 9 58.44 ( 13)

(01-16-2012 04:36 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 02:29 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 01:20 PM)eaglfan81 Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 12:10 PM)PATiger Wrote:  We're still better than you and always will be.

Incorrect. Tech would have beat Memphis by 50 this year. Tech football is in much better shape overall than Memphis football.

I support them as a member. I want good football. I don't care about some shatty team's market.

We'll never know who would win a Tech/Tiger game or by how much, but 50 is a big number.

All conference member struggle in aspects of their programs at times and we're certainly facing big-time challenges with football right now.

However, 50 is a pretty big stretch.

FWIW, if we are required to expand, Tech is a legitimate candidate who brings assets to the table.

A good indication is that we both played Mississippi State this year. They beat Memphis by 45 in Memphis. Tech tied them 20-20 in Starkville.

Sagarin has Tech as a 36 point favorite in Ruston and a 30 point favorite in Memphis.

Based on this, Tech would probably win by 30-50 points.

Fine. We'll never know who would have won in a game this year. Extrapolating a projected 30-36 point game to 50 points is a stretch, I don't care how it's worded.

Being objective and looking at honest positives and challenges obviously has no place in conference membership discussions, at least not this one. In multiple threads, including this one I've been asked to defend my comments about La Tech's positives/assets in possible CUSA expansion and also defend why some fictitious 50 point Bulldog victory makes no sense. Closed minded fans on both sides can continue the discussion at will as I've made my feelings on expansion/non-expansion?La Tech known in a half dozen threads on the subject. I won't resort to name calling or bashing, but tou guys have fun while I seek a subject with a little more open minded, objective crowd. This is a waste of my time.

(01-16-2012 04:46 PM)PATiger Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 04:41 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 02:31 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 01:20 PM)eaglfan81 Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 12:10 PM)PATiger Wrote:  We're still better than you and always will be.

Incorrect. Tech would have beat Memphis by 50 this year. Tech football is in much better shape overall than Memphis football.

I support them as a member. I want good football. I don't care about some shatty team's market.

so why does tech have 3 bowls in the last decade and Memphis has 5?

WAC: tougher league with 3 bowl tie-ins.
CUSA: easier league with 6 bowl tie-ins.

You get more ignorant with every post.

1 BIG 12 (A) = 83.61 82.83 ( 1) 10 83.08 ( 1)
2 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 80.88 81.60 ( 2) 12 81.27 ( 2)
3 BIG TEN (A) = 75.55 75.30 ( 4) 12 75.49 ( 3)
4 PAC-12 (A) = 74.72 75.38 ( 3) 12 75.14 ( 4)
5 BIG EAST (A) = 72.41 72.86 ( 5) 8 72.82 ( 5)
6 I-A INDEPENDENTS (A) = 71.92 71.49 ( 6) 4 71.59 ( 6)
7 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 71.23 71.03 ( 7) 12 71.06 ( 7)
8 CONFERENCE USA (A) = 66.04 65.79 ( 9) 12 65.98 ( 8)
9 MOUNTAIN WEST (A) = 65.86 66.22 ( 8) 8 65.85 ( 9)
10 WESTERN ATHLETIC (A) = 63.73 63.94 ( 10) 8 63.92 ( 10)
11 MID-AMERICAN (A) = 63.53 63.31 ( 11) 13 63.51 ( 11)
12 SUN BELT (A) = 58.85 58.30 ( 13) 9 58.44 ( 13)

I'm talking about over the past 10 years, not just this year. The WAC was stronger than CUSA in 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010. In reality, they are about the same, but the WAC still has half as manye bowl tie-ins as CUSA. Memphis' 2004 and 2007 bowl teams would not have gone bowling if they were in the WAC.

(01-16-2012 05:23 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  I'm talking about over the past 10 years, not just this year. The WAC was stronger than CUSA in 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010. In reality, they are about the same, but the WAC still has half as manye bowl tie-ins as CUSA. Memphis' 2004 and 2007 bowl teams would not have gone bowling if they were in the WAC.

You're being ignorant again. The WAC always has been a joke, with the exception of Boise State. The WAC was Boise State and a bunch of scrubs. Now that Boise State is gone, it's just a bunch of scrubs. You don't even have 8 competing in football after this year.

(01-16-2012 05:29 PM)PATiger Wrote:  

(01-16-2012 05:23 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  I'm talking about over the past 10 years, not just this year. The WAC was stronger than CUSA in 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010. In reality, they are about the same, but the WAC still has half as manye bowl tie-ins as CUSA. Memphis' 2004 and 2007 bowl teams would not have gone bowling if they were in the WAC.

You're being ignorant again. The WAC always has been a joke, with the exception of Boise State. The WAC was Boise State and a bunch of scrubs. Now that Boise State is gone, it's just a bunch of scrubs. You don't even have 8 competing in football after this year.

I'm presenting facts, not ignoring them. Memphis went bowling in 2004, ranked #92, which would have been the 6th best team in the WAC, with only 3 bowl tie-ins. You were the 5th best team in CUSA and a bowl game was available. Memphis went bowling in 2007, ranked #128, which would have been the 7th best team in the WAC, with only 3 bowl tie-ins, but you finished 6th in CUSA and a bowl game was available. What am I ignoring?