Will baby seals grow thicker skulls to save future generations from drunken Eskimo carrying big sticks? Stand by as we watch the baby seals evolution at work. Who knows, perhaps the baby seals will grow clubbed hand of their own for defense against the marauding Eskimo's. Oh the anticipation as we see what nature has in store for us.

(01-07-2016 06:34 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  Will baby seals grow thicker skulls to save future generations from drunken Eskimo carrying big sticks? Stand by as we watch the baby seals evolution at work. Who knows, perhaps the baby seals will grow clubbed hand of their own for defense against the marauding Eskimo's. Oh the anticipation as we see what nature has in store for us.

No. Baby seals would form a loose alliance with Polar Bears which would find more meat on drunken Eskimos. The seals will agree to lure the Eskimos out onto the ice flows where the Polar Bears have the frigid Arctic Sea as the Eskimos only avenue of escape. The Bears eat and eat well, the baby seals swim off. That would be justice.

(01-07-2016 07:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 06:34 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  Will baby seals grow thicker skulls to save future generations from drunken Eskimo carrying big sticks? Stand by as we watch the baby seals evolution at work. Who knows, perhaps the baby seals will grow clubbed hand of their own for defense against the marauding Eskimo's. Oh the anticipation as we see what nature has in store for us.

No. Baby seals would form a loose alliance with Polar Bears which would find more meat on drunken Eskimos. The seals will agree to lure the Eskimos out onto the ice flows where the Polar Bears have the frigid Arctic Sea as the Eskimos only avenue of escape. The Bears eat and eat well, the baby seals swim off. That would be justice.

Oh my popcorn is in hand now. Let nature commence in all it's glory.

I will state that this as well as the revelation that Walrus have been secretly paying off Killer Wales for protection against their arch enemy the Great White Shark, is astonishing. we've learned so much these past couple years. The Walrus have been secretly paying the Killer Whale Clans Giant Clams for protection.

Why can't we learn to overcome obstacles the way these simple creatures have. Why must we ignore geography. It's not just an often over looked class in our curriculum or a stray map sheet laying on the floor. It's there so let us use it. Sigh!

You go Walrus and Seals. Show us the true path.

(01-07-2016 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Right.

Point being, in counter to JR's vision, college Football should still be market based. Ie, if you want to see major college games outside your market ... go to a bar!

College football isn't popular enough for that, especially aside from a couple dozen teams at the most.

They'd be blocking themselves from developing new fans.

(01-08-2016 05:01 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Right.

Point being, in counter to JR's vision, college Football should still be market based. Ie, if you want to see major college games outside your market ... go to a bar!

College football isn't popular enough for that, especially aside from a couple dozen teams at the most.

They'd be blocking themselves from developing new fans.

Well, the point he was trying to make was that streaming makes every college football game national.

I don't agree that will be the case, until perhaps the long-term. But the NFL is a counter-example of how artificially limiting viewership to markets can generate extra revenue.

(01-08-2016 10:51 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 05:01 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Right.

Point being, in counter to JR's vision, college Football should still be market based. Ie, if you want to see major college games outside your market ... go to a bar!

College football isn't popular enough for that, especially aside from a couple dozen teams at the most.

They'd be blocking themselves from developing new fans.

Well, the point he was trying to make was that streaming makes every college football game national.

I don't agree that will be the case, until perhaps the long-term. But the NFL is a counter-example of how artificially limiting viewership to markets can generate extra revenue.

Virtually every televised game is national now. Look at your local TV guide. If you have BTN, SECN, P12N and LHN, you can get nearly every single P5 game every Saturday. The only exceptions might be a single Tier III Big 12 or syndicated ACC game or two.

(01-08-2016 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 10:51 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 05:01 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Right.

Point being, in counter to JR's vision, college Football should still be market based. Ie, if you want to see major college games outside your market ... go to a bar!

College football isn't popular enough for that, especially aside from a couple dozen teams at the most.

They'd be blocking themselves from developing new fans.

Well, the point he was trying to make was that streaming makes every college football game national.

I don't agree that will be the case, until perhaps the long-term. But the NFL is a counter-example of how artificially limiting viewership to markets can generate extra revenue.

Virtually every televised game is national now. Look at your local TV guide. If you have BTN, SECN, P12N and LHN, you can get nearly every single P5 game every Saturday. The only exceptions might be a single Tier III Big 12 or syndicated ACC game or two.

Actually, that proves my point. The networks you cite are regional/market based.

You have to pay extra for a special subscription, if you're outside that region/market.

(01-08-2016 11:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 10:51 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 05:01 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Right.

Point being, in counter to JR's vision, college Football should still be market based. Ie, if you want to see major college games outside your market ... go to a bar!

College football isn't popular enough for that, especially aside from a couple dozen teams at the most.

They'd be blocking themselves from developing new fans.

Well, the point he was trying to make was that streaming makes every college football game national.

I don't agree that will be the case, until perhaps the long-term. But the NFL is a counter-example of how artificially limiting viewership to markets can generate extra revenue.

Virtually every televised game is national now. Look at your local TV guide. If you have BTN, SECN, P12N and LHN, you can get nearly every single P5 game every Saturday. The only exceptions might be a single Tier III Big 12 or syndicated ACC game or two.

Actually, that proves my point. The networks you cite are regional/market based.

You have to pay extra for a special subscription, if you're outside that region/market.

Those conference networks have the trash games. And that's still only 9 games on a typical Saturday (6 if you are in one of those regions). The other 25-30 are national.

(01-08-2016 11:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 11:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 10:51 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 05:01 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  College football isn't popular enough for that, especially aside from a couple dozen teams at the most.

They'd be blocking themselves from developing new fans.

Well, the point he was trying to make was that streaming makes every college football game national.

I don't agree that will be the case, until perhaps the long-term. But the NFL is a counter-example of how artificially limiting viewership to markets can generate extra revenue.

Virtually every televised game is national now. Look at your local TV guide. If you have BTN, SECN, P12N and LHN, you can get nearly every single P5 game every Saturday. The only exceptions might be a single Tier III Big 12 or syndicated ACC game or two.

Actually, that proves my point. The networks you cite are regional/market based.

You have to pay extra for a special subscription, if you're outside that region/market.

Those conference networks have the trash games. And that's still only 9 games on a typical Saturday (6 if you are in one of those regions). The other 25-30 are national.

Again, not so. Splitting the games up via region on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2, is a great example.

(01-07-2016 05:06 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 01:52 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(01-06-2016 12:36 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Houston is just getting back to where it was at long last. Houston was another Georgia Tech, Cal or Syracuse as recently as 20-25 years ago.

No, no they werent. They were a late add to the swc that had a reputation for a gimmick offense that ran up the score on bad teams.

None of teams you listed did that.

Ga tech shouldnt be included they won a national champuonship in 1990. Syracuse tied auburn in a sugar bowl. I cant remember cal doing anything much ever

Gimmick? Its the predecessor of the Spread offense and we didn't start using it until 1987 11 years after we joined the SWC.

Try again.....

Oh and those wins over "bad teams" included (from 1987-1992 when we ran it) and ill just limit it to wins over ranked teams...

Wyoming (#10), Texas Tech (#20), Texas A&M (#20) among plenty of other unranked "good" teams....

Texas, Missouri, Arizona State, Arkansas, Illinois, Etc.

Gimmick? Must be talking about the run n shoot. When UH was added we were running the Veer on offense which inspired about 2/3 of all college offenses - and it started here bub. The blocking schemes Yeoman and his assistants were using were the forerunner to zone blocking schemes that are used to this day in the NFL. On defense Yeoman (with Bum Phillips and Kiffin Sr) put together the idea of smaller quicker penetrating lineman that became the 4/3 under that was predominant in the NFL for a long time, and still common at all levels of football.

Forgive my ignorance, but was the 4-3 Under actually popular in the NFL and/or college at some point in the past?

The 4-3 Over seems to be the standard defense of modern football, with 3-4 being a popular alternative.