In answer to USM@FTL. Quote by FTL, "Fletch wins. Glad to see that Toledo is accumulating some talent though. Should make that trip to Hattiesburg less of a vicious raping and more like a savage beating, as usual. Tata!"
I don't think Tulane will be afraid of USM this year. If they can hang with LSU, Alabama and ECU (as proven the past season,) they can surely hang with USM.
I moved this to a new thread because of its change of focus.
Oh yes! Let's beat on Tulane! Such fun! Like killing ants with a magnifying glass! Ya'll gonna punt on 3rd down again?
I'll take Tulane in an upset.
(06-17-2009 11:15 AM)USM@FTL Wrote: [ -> ]Oh yes! Let's beat on Tulane! Such fun! Like killing ants with a magnifying glass! Ya'll gonna punt on 3rd down again?
You probably don't know this but in 1958 LSU won the national championship. The interesting thing about that team is that whenever they had a third down situation, they punted.
It might also interest you to know that Tulane's punting on third down against USM had more to do with Scelfo than with USM.
(06-17-2009 10:27 AM)Observer Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think Tulane will be afraid of USM this year. If they can hang with LSU, Alabama and ECU (as proven the past season,) they can surely hang with USM.
That's kind of like saying "since ECU scored against Va Tech and beat them, they will DEFINITELY score more than 3 points on USM"
Whoops.
Inasmuch as Va Tech and USM did not play against the same team, the comparison is invalid.
(06-17-2009 10:27 AM)Observer Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think Tulane will be afraid of USM this year. If they can hang with LSU, Alabama and ECU (as proven the past season,) they can surely hang with USM.
Since you want to use games from last season, ok lets go there...
UAB 41 Tulane 24
Memphis 45 Tulane 6
Tulsa 56 Tulane 7
Houston 42 Tulane 14
Rice 42 Tulane 17
Army 44 Tulane 13
I love how you use a few games Tulane(even though they still lost them)didn't get slaughtered in as a reason they can hang with USM.
Wake up and see reality. The scores I listed above are the reality of Tulane football. Every summer you show up here and tell us how great Tulane football is going to be and every fall they fail. I admire your support for the Wave, but Tulane's lack of success speaks for itself.
(06-17-2009 12:55 PM)usmbacker Wrote: [ -> ]I love how you use a few games Tulane(even though they still lost them)didn't get slaughtered in as a reason they can hang with USM.
Wake up and see reality. The scores I listed above are the reality of Tulane football.
In 2008, Tulane football had one reality in the first four games of the season (in which Tulane was generally ranked #70-#75 in the national power ratings of all 120 I-A teams, and was on track for a bowl game and an 8-5 type final-record), and then a different reality in the last eight games (when Tulane was probably the worst I-A team in the country). Anyone who is willing to look at the situation honestly and neutrally knows that both parts of that equation are true.
In all candor, I have no idea which one of those two realities will emerge for the 2009 team. There are some legitimate reasons to expect either one. If it's the former, Tulane will certainly be able to take any C-USA team down to the wire, if not win the game outright. If it's the latter, Tulane will be lucky to beat McNeese State.
The two divergent realities are a result of 17 injuries to starters, stripping both the offense and defense of most of their experience and production. Losing the league's leading rusher, a conference leading receiver, two qb's, etc. can have a very dibilitating effect on a team. Most teams in conference lost less than four starters during the course of the season. Is anyone foolish enough to think that if USM had lost their QB, RB, best receriver and entire defensive line that they would have had a successful season? Only an idiot would expect that. Yet Tulane's losses were far worse. Now that everyone is healthy we'll see if last year's high expectations were warranted.
(06-17-2009 02:01 PM)USM@FTL Wrote: [ -> ]or somewhere in between!
Possible, sure. But I think the "reality" will be much,
Much closer to one or the other.
(06-17-2009 02:07 PM)Observer Wrote: [ -> ]The two divergent realities are a result of 17 injuries to starters, stripping both the offense and defense of most of their experience and production. Losing the league's leading rusher, a conference leading receiver, two qb's, etc. can have a very dibilitating effect on a team. Most teams in conference lost less than four starters during the course of the season. Is anyone foolish enough to think that if USM had lost their QB, RB, best receriver and entire defensive line that they would have had a successful season? Only an idiot would expect that. Yet Tulane's losses were far worse. Now that everyone is healthy we'll see if last year's high expectations were warranted.
You know, I started to post in my original post that the excuses for those scores would be forthcoming. Every year Observer, you have more and new excuses for Tulane football being terrible. Somethings don't ever change. I wonder what this year's excuse will be?
Yes excuses. It is an excuse that Tulane had a review of its athletic programs with the intent of cancelling sports. And its also a myth that Hurricane Katrina did great damage to New Orleans and the campus, forcing the entire student body, including sports teams into exile. Everyone knows that Tulane's football team merely chose to first travel and stay at SMU, then Louisiana Tech for leisure. Having no clothes, toiletries, uniforms or other amenities certainly is nothing to be concerned about. Not knowing the whereabouts of family members for weeks could not possibly have been a distraction. And certainly there was no real need for the team to have access to a practice field, weight training facilities or dining facilities. Those are all mere excuses. It is only an excuse that Tulane did not even have a campus onto which to bring recruits in 2005. I'm sure bringing them to the condemned dormatory in Ruston would have been a recruiting advantage.
Lesson in reality backer. If there was a review it is a fact, not an excuse. It there was a Katrina, it is a fact, not an excuse. If there were an inordinate amount of injuries it is a fact, not an excuse.
The truth is backer, you have a deep seeded hatred for New Orleans and Tulane and have never said anything about either that was not an insult or attack. You lack credibility with those who follow yiour tirades. But keep pumping your vile antagonisms. You will find them very difficult to swollow one day.
(06-17-2009 02:40 PM)Observer Wrote: [ -> ]Yes excuses. It is an excuse that Tulane had a review of its athletic programs with the intent of cancelling sports. And its also a myth that Hurricane Katrina did great damage to New Orleans and the campus, forcing the entire student body, including sports teams into exile. Everyone knows that Tulane's football team merely chose to first travel and stay at SMU, then Louisiana Tech for leisure. Having no clothes, toiletries, uniforms or other amenities certainly is nothing to be concerned about. Not knowing the whereabouts of family members for weeks could not possibly have been a distraction. And certainly there was no real need for the team to have access to a practice field, weight training facilities or dining facilities. Those are all mere excuses. It is only an excuse that Tulane did not even have a campus onto which to bring recruits in 2005. I'm sure bringing them to the condemned dormatory in Ruston would have been a recruiting advantage.
Lesson in reality backer. If there was a review it is a fact, not an excuse. It there was a Katrina, it is a fact, not an excuse. If there were an inordinate amount of injuries it is a fact, not an excuse.
The truth is backer, you have a deep seeded hatred for New Orleans and Tulane and have never said anything about either that was not an insult or attack. You lack credibility with those who follow yiour tirades. But keep pumping your vile antagonisms. You will find them very difficult to swollow one day.
Observer, yes Katrina set back Tulane football. Nobody will argue that. So how do you explain Tulane football over the last fifty years????
Tulane football over the last fifty years.....
2 winning seasons in the last ten years
4 winning sesons in the last twenty years
7 winning seasons in the last thirty years
10 winning seasons in the last forty years
11 winning seasons in the last fifty years
I can't wait to hear the excuses for such a distinguished history over the last fifty years of Wave football. Yes, you had one great season, but after that, Tulane football has been an epic failure for the last fifty years overall.
You attack me, when all I am doing is reporting the factual results of Tulane football. I make no personal attack, just reporting the facts. Are my facts not correct?
(06-17-2009 02:07 PM)Observer Wrote: [ -> ]Most teams in conference lost less than four starters during the course of the season.
FTR Rice had 4 out against Tulane (Raines, James, Sendejo, and King). Leary missed 6 other games. At no point did we have both of our top corners. Hill, arguably our top RB, missed 6 games and was never at full strength. His carries against Tulane were in mop-up duty. Our injury situation in '08 wasn't nearly as bad as in '07, but we were definitely not fully healthy throughout the season.
I know ECU had major injury problems throughout the year.
Good luck this year except against us. I think starting Kemp is a good move for you.
(06-17-2009 02:56 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (06-17-2009 02:07 PM)Observer Wrote: [ -> ]Most teams in conference lost less than four starters during the course of the season.
FTR Rice had 4 out against Tulane (Raines, James, Sendejo, and King). Leary missed 6 other games. At no point did we have both of our top corners. Hill, arguably our top RB, missed 6 games and was never at full strength. His carries against Tulane were in mop-up duty. Our injury situation in '08 wasn't nearly as bad as in '07, but we were definitely not fully healthy throughout the season.
I know ECU had major injury problems throughout the year.
Good luck this year except against us. I think starting Kemp is a good move for you.
Injuries are a fact of football all teams have to deal with.
Backer, you listed the totals of winning seasons in period groups, but you failed to list what transpired during those periods. You forgot to mention Tulane de-emphasizing sports leading to athletic mediocracy. Leaving the SEC, further damaging Tulane's athletic profile. Vascilating between interest in building a program and discontinuing the program. What your numbers represent is the fact that when Tulane made a decision to be competitive, they were very good. When they entertained musings of eliminating sports, the program crashed. Throw in Katrina and its five year impact and you have the results you listed.
Also, my pointing out your disdain for New Orleans was not based solely on this thread, but on your entire body of work on this forum regarding Tulane and New Orleans.
