(11-01-2017 12:56 PM)dfarr Wrote: La Tech didn't botch a field goal at the end of the game. We blocked it. There's a difference.
UAB head coach Bill Clark after the game: "A missed kick is a gift. That wasn't a missed kick. We blocked it."
There is a difference, but on a chip shot like this the kick has to be bad. It still takes effort and making a play to block it, but the kick shouldn't be that low for a 20 yarder.
Looks like the kicker pulled a 4 iron and should have pulled the 9 iron instead from that distance. If UAB blocks another FG on a play with double digit win percentage leverage, then I will happily eat my losses.
(10-30-2017 03:31 PM)Antarius Wrote: Also the only common opponent was LaTech. UAB beat them by 1, while we lost by 14.
I'll admit a prediction to win is bold, but losing by less than 11.5 points is highly probable. The fact we are 11.5 dogs to UAB is crazy based on UAB's schedule, so maybe this is how we improve on Bailiff's underdog+ records.
LaTech botched a chip-in FG to win against UAB with 0:00 left on the clock and would have been going to OT in any case if they had not just missed a PAT on the prior drive. We tied LaTech with 4 minutes to go and the game was not in hand until 36 seconds to go, so the final margin of 14 doesn't tell the whole story. Hard for me to see a compelling reason that this game won't be a single possession game the entire way outside of an Army-style TO bonanza. I give the edge to Rice since on paper Rice looks terrible and UAB has played down to bad competition this year (they didn't put away Alabama A&M until the 4th quarter, loss to Charlotte, etc.) and committed several mental mistakes throughout the season (to match our TO tendencies).
Seeing Rice fight back a little in the LaTech game raises my expectation that they will want to sniff out at least a couple of wins for the rest of the schedule. UAB is perhaps the best mark on the schedule to pull this off and UAB is a team prone to look ahead.
We Blocked a USM FG as well. Dont matter what no one thinks, fact is we BLOCKED both FGs on record and got both wins.
Now, you can at eat your looses, loses, or losses. Fact is we blocked it and they loss.
(11-01-2017 03:13 PM)rook360 Wrote: We Blocked a USM FG as well. Dont matter what no one thinks, fact is we BLOCKED both FGs on record and got both wins.
Now, you can at eat your looses, loses, or losses. Fact is we blocked it and they loss.
Doubt you will block a FG against Rice! Not because Rice is awesome, but we have only attempted 4 on the season.
(11-01-2017 03:13 PM)rook360 Wrote: We Blocked a USM FG as well. Dont matter what no one thinks, fact is we BLOCKED both FGs on record and got both wins.
Now, you can at eat your looses, loses, or losses. Fact is we blocked it and they loss.
Doubt you will block a FG against Rice! Not because Rice is awesome, but we have only attempted 4 on the season.
(11-02-2017 12:09 PM)gsloth Wrote: Two blocked kicks are nice.
I guess.
Has your team ever had one player(!) block 3 kicks (all extra points, even) in a game (in reality, in just the first half)?
Rice has.
And no other team EVER has.
(Dang, something positive from the Bailiff error (sic).)
Blocking 3 extra points in one half means that you gave up at least 3 TDs in that half. I would not call that a positive.
(11-02-2017 12:09 PM)gsloth Wrote: Two blocked kicks are nice.
I guess.
Has your team ever had one player(!) block 3 kicks (all extra points, even) in a game (in reality, in just the first half)?
Rice has.
And no other team EVER has.
(Dang, something positive from the Bailiff error (sic).)
Blocking 3 extra points in one half means that you gave up at least 3 TDs in that half. I would not call that a positive.
(11-02-2017 12:09 PM)gsloth Wrote: Two blocked kicks are nice.
I guess.
Has your team ever had one player(!) block 3 kicks (all extra points, even) in a game (in reality, in just the first half)?
Rice has.
And no other team EVER has.
(Dang, something positive from the Bailiff error (sic).)
Blocking 3 extra points in one half means that you gave up at least 3 TDs in that half. I would not call that a positive.
You're not supposed to drop smack on your own team, when they're engaged like that. I knew full well what it also meant. I know you both know this, but dropping smack (since they wanted in) means ignoring the weaknesses in your argument to one up them.
I almost parentheticaled my comment (which is my usual habit), but left it open to see if one of the UAB fans caught it. It's a valid comeback for them, if they so choose it.
(11-02-2017 12:09 PM)gsloth Wrote: Two blocked kicks are nice.
I guess.
Has your team ever had one player(!) block 3 kicks (all extra points, even) in a game (in reality, in just the first half)?
Rice has.
And no other team EVER has.
(Dang, something positive from the Bailiff error (sic).)
Blocking 3 extra points in one half means that you gave up at least 3 TDs in that half. I would not call that a positive.
You're not supposed to drop smack on your own team, when they're engaged like that. I knew full well what it also meant. I know you both know this, but dropping smack (since they wanted in) means ignoring the weaknesses in your argument to one up them.
I almost parentheticaled my comment (which is my usual habit), but left it open to see if one of the UAB fans caught it. It's a valid comeback for them, if they so choose it.
What game is this referring to? I thought he was talking about Margus Hunt from SMU blocking 3 of our kicks
(This post was last modified: 11-03-2017 11:02 AM by Middle Ages.)
(11-02-2017 12:09 PM)gsloth Wrote: Two blocked kicks are nice.
I guess.
Has your team ever had one player(!) block 3 kicks (all extra points, even) in a game (in reality, in just the first half)?
Rice has.
And no other team EVER has.
(Dang, something positive from the Bailiff error (sic).)
Blocking 3 extra points in one half means that you gave up at least 3 TDs in that half. I would not call that a positive.
You're not supposed to drop smack on your own team, when they're engaged like that. I knew full well what it also meant. I know you both know this, but dropping smack (since they wanted in) means ignoring the weaknesses in your argument to one up them.
I almost parentheticaled my comment (which is my usual habit), but left it open to see if one of the UAB fans caught it. It's a valid comeback for them, if they so choose it.
What game is this referring to? I thought he was talking about Margus Hunt from SMU blocking 3 of our kicks
(11-02-2017 04:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Blocking 3 extra points in one half means that you gave up at least 3 TDs in that half. I would not call that a positive.
You're not supposed to drop smack on your own team, when they're engaged like that. I knew full well what it also meant. I know you both know this, but dropping smack (since they wanted in) means ignoring the weaknesses in your argument to one up them.
I almost parentheticaled my comment (which is my usual habit), but left it open to see if one of the UAB fans caught it. It's a valid comeback for them, if they so choose it.
What game is this referring to? I thought he was talking about Margus Hunt from SMU blocking 3 of our kicks
My brother (Auburn grad) lives in Birmingham. He told me that he was thinking of going to our game on Saturday. I told him, "Don't." I really find it so embarrassing that I don't want people to see it.
(10-31-2017 08:56 AM)McHargue Wrote: The NCAA also allowed UAB to bring kids in under the normal academic standard to get back on track so that explains some of the success. We still shouldn't be 2 score dogs to a program that just came back from the dead though.
that is not correct. they suspended the APR clock and the eligibility clock. it allowed us to bring in players who needed time to work on their academics. you also had some players that could have gone elsewhere, but their eligibility would run out before they could graduate. we also got players who came because it gave them the time to work on an advanced degree while on an athletic scholarship. most of the higher ranked prospects who had academic problems are no longer in school or have not qualified to be on the roster.
(10-31-2017 08:56 AM)McHargue Wrote: The NCAA also allowed UAB to bring kids in under the normal academic standard to get back on track so that explains some of the success. We still shouldn't be 2 score dogs to a program that just came back from the dead though.
that is not correct. they suspended the APR clock and the eligibility clock. it allowed us to bring in players who needed time to work on their academics. you also had some players that could have gone elsewhere, but their eligibility would run out before they could graduate. we also got players who came because it gave them the time to work on an advanced degree while on an athletic scholarship. most of the higher ranked prospects who had academic problems are no longer in school or have not qualified to be on the roster.
A lot more than SMU got. Still, it will be fun to watch your engineering majors play our guys.
![[Image: 8QZ58P7.png]](https://i.imgur.com/8QZ58P7.png)
![[Image: itsover1000.jpg]](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/056/itsover1000.jpg){kind=icon}
I know you both know this, but dropping smack (since they wanted in) means ignoring the weaknesses in your argument to one up them.
