(09-17-2013 08:29 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 08:04 AM)EaglesDare Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 07:55 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  I expected more from the greates team known to man. That is all.

So did we. We are trying some new things so we won't disappoint you next season, that would be the greates(t) by the way. The "t" is for team.

Dismissed.

Anyway you write it is still chalked up as a BIG FAT L!!! Lmao

And I know it has a T, typing on my phone sucks.

How ordinary.

http://vid2.anyclip.com/cidmJYuu2h7mu

Not my fault you swamp dwellers can't spell or type. Thought there was a smack board for this. Anyway, have your little jokes. If you are lucky maybe you get out of the SB before you have to play GS. That's what all the "good" SB teams want isn't it.

(09-17-2013 08:39 AM)EaglesDare Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 08:29 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 08:04 AM)EaglesDare Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 07:55 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  I expected more from the greates team known to man. That is all.

So did we. We are trying some new things so we won't disappoint you next season, that would be the greates(t) by the way. The "t" is for team.

Dismissed.

Anyway you write it is still chalked up as a BIG FAT L!!! Lmao

And I know it has a T, typing on my phone sucks.

How ordinary.

http://vid2.anyclip.com/cidmJYuu2h7mu

Not my fault you swamp dwellers can't spell or type. Thought there was a smack board for this. Anyway, have your little jokes. If you are lucky maybe you get out of the SB before you have to play GS. That's what all the "good" SB teams want isn't it.

bring it on big mouth...

(09-17-2013 09:27 AM)swampbear Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 08:39 AM)EaglesDare Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 08:29 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 08:04 AM)EaglesDare Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 07:55 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  I expected more from the greates team known to man. That is all.

So did we. We are trying some new things so we won't disappoint you next season, that would be the greates(t) by the way. The "t" is for team.

Dismissed.

Anyway you write it is still chalked up as a BIG FAT L!!! Lmao

And I know it has a T, typing on my phone sucks.

How ordinary.

http://vid2.anyclip.com/cidmJYuu2h7mu

Not my fault you swamp dwellers can't spell or type. Thought there was a smack board for this. Anyway, have your little jokes. If you are lucky maybe you get out of the SB before you have to play GS. That's what all the "good" SB teams want isn't it.

bring it on big mouth...

Pot - kettle....

(09-15-2013 08:42 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  No excuses from this Eagle fan-- Wofford beat us on both sides of the ball. Offensively we were in 3rd and longs many many times and frankly our offense (and most others for that matter) is not geared to make 3rd and 8, 3rd and 10, 3rd and 12 very much.

Wofford may not have a team of great athletes but they are tough and on offense they do what they do very well.

The problem with a lot of those 3rd and longs was that we decided to go for it all and throw a 40 yard bomb on most of them instead of simply going one more yard past the sticks. That never made any sense to me.

(09-17-2013 09:57 AM)KJ Eagle Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 08:42 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  No excuses from this Eagle fan-- Wofford beat us on both sides of the ball. Offensively we were in 3rd and longs many many times and frankly our offense (and most others for that matter) is not geared to make 3rd and 8, 3rd and 10, 3rd and 12 very much.

Wofford may not have a team of great athletes but they are tough and on offense they do what they do very well.

The problem with a lot of those 3rd and longs was that we decided to go for it all and throw a 40 yard bomb on most of them instead of simply going one more yard past the sticks. That never made any sense to me.

That has always confounded me too. Seldom do we throw anything short. The best option is to take what the D gives you and with our offense those routes are usually there but instead we go for the home run ball.

(09-16-2013 11:10 AM)CatMom Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 01:01 PM)Yosef84 Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 12:57 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 05:59 AM)Yosef84 Wrote:  

(09-14-2013 10:55 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  That has been a topic of discussion with both teams fans and others.
Seems like the NCAA could do things a little different, but you play the cards you are dealt.

It seems to me that the FCS transitional year is a waste. It's just my opinion, but I think that they shouldn't add to the scholarship limit until an FBS schedule is implemented. The last year is FCS would effectively allow for planning, facilities upgrades, recruiting for future years, etc. but the team would still be eligible for playoffs & championships. Whether a two years transition in FBS would be needed is debatable, but I could even go for that. I really don't see the need for a two year transition to be honest, unless you're dealing with a start up team and it is a "probation" period during which requirements have to be fulfilled. The post season prohibition seem stupid once a team is in the FBS. It's not like they have an advantage. What purpose does it serve?

You need a two year transition to (theoretically) not just have an "FCS" squad with 22 extra freshmen to get to 85.

Plus, given the NCAA limits on number of kids you can sign in an individual class, it's almost impossible to go from 63 to 85 in one class.

OK...I do get that, but the prohibition against post season still doesn't make sense. Having fewer scholarships is a disadvantage, so...why penalize a program who succeeds with FEWER scholarships? It's specifically the prohibition that I'm talking about. Just start the transition in year1 of FBS if that's what it takes.

You have to get up to FBS "speed". Most FCS teams routinely get a few FBS calibre players but to have a full squad of FBS talent will take a few years. Just adding scholarships isn't going to do it.
TXST still has juniors (who RS) and seniors that were FCS level recruits and we're in year 4 of transition. (ie: Full FBS)
I believe this is one of the reasons for the transitional timeframe. If you played as an FBS in the first year you have 74 scholarship players but a boat load of FCS talent still on the roster. Even @ 85 in your second year, most of the players, or at least half, are still FCS talent and you are not close to the depth you need to compete. We're still a year or 2 away from having all the talent/depth we need.
There will be an ocassional team that might be able to transition faster but I haven't seen it for a while.

And don't look at UITSA, they were going FBS (come hell or high water) and recruited FBS from the get go. They also had a year (or two) when all they did was practice, practice, practice. It seems to have paid off for them.

Re: the prohibiton. When you start the transition, you add scholarships and that puts you at an advantage. Even 1 more scholarship plays into the advantage vs an FCS team. I believe ODU got some sort of exception so they could go the playoffs but they did not add any schollies until after.

I completely understand why a team with additional scholarships playing an FCS schedule is prohibited from post season. My point was specific to the prohibition in the first year of FBS. I also understand that you have to get up to FBS speed as there is a difference in the level of competition. All I'm saying is that, in my opinion, it would make more sense to NOT add scholarships at all while playing in the FCS. I think they should remain at 63 and compete as usual. Add the scholarships in the first year of FBS. That is the year where it does NOT make sense to have a prohibition....even under the current system. Obviously, a transitional team would be unlikely to win the championship or even qualify for a bowl while competing at a disadvantage. So, if they do, why keep them out of post season? They have effectively defied the odds by succeeding, so why penalize them?

(09-16-2013 11:32 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  IMO, moving up to FBS is not as easy as you all seem to think. It will take a few years before new teams start making waves generally. Of course there are exceptions, and one of the two SoCon teams entering the SBC next year will fair better than the other. Which one is of course is unknown and I am not going out on a limb to predict. I am no coach (once was a youth football coach back in the day) but I think these coaches are indeed, doing some experimenting and will cost y'all some wins. Recruiting will have to be brought to the next level for either one to be successful. Down the road, I look for both programs to excel in the Belt.

Just to be clear....I do not underestimate the difficulty of the transition. I've made no predictions about App being a world beater in our first year. The fact that it is unlikely is precisely why it does NOT make sense to build in a penalty. If transitional teams had some sort of advantage (like the lower academic standards for recruiting in D2 vs. D1 that comes into play when a team makes that move) the prohibition would make sense, but the teams are at an obvious disadvantage....so why remove the "prize"?

I think it is to make you more competitive when you actually become FBS. If not, it will take 4-5 years to get all those FBS players (ie: the FCS talent has graduated) on board. For my part, I feel the transition has helped as we enter official FBS with having had 3 FBS recruiting classes and the majority of the team is now FBS as opposed to FCS, in our first year of "officially classified FBS"


When Fran came on board he felt we 8-10 guys that could start on any other FBS team. Now we have about 35-40.

(09-17-2013 07:22 PM)CatMom Wrote:  I think it is to make you more competitive when you actually become FBS. If not, it will take 4-5 years to get all those FBS players (ie: the FCS talent has graduated) on board. For my part, I feel the transition has helped as we enter official FBS with having had 3 FBS recruiting classes and the majority of the team is now FBS as opposed to FCS, in our first year of "officially classified FBS"


When Fran came on board he felt we 8-10 guys that could start on any other FBS team. Now we have about 35-40.

It does seem to be working well for the Bobcat, CatMom. I'm fine with others not agreeing, as I'm sure there are many different perspectives. Bottom line is that the system is what it is and we will deal with it. I'm glad to be joining the Sun Belt. I don't want to look past this season, but I definitely look forward to playing in our new conference. My manager is in our Plano office, so I am hoping to make it out there some time for a game.

Back to the topic of GaSo's loss....I wouldn't write them off after one ugly game. It happens, and I will wager that the GaSo/App game will be another great one!

Heck, I wouldn't write them off either. Followed their program for too long to ever think it.

(09-17-2013 07:31 PM)Yosef84 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 07:22 PM)CatMom Wrote:  I think it is to make you more competitive when you actually become FBS. If not, it will take 4-5 years to get all those FBS players (ie: the FCS talent has graduated) on board. For my part, I feel the transition has helped as we enter official FBS with having had 3 FBS recruiting classes and the majority of the team is now FBS as opposed to FCS, in our first year of "officially classified FBS"


When Fran came on board he felt we 8-10 guys that could start on any other FBS team. Now we have about 35-40.

It does seem to be working well for the Bobcat, CatMom. I'm fine with others not agreeing, as I'm sure there are many different perspectives. Bottom line is that the system is what it is and we will deal with it. I'm glad to be joining the Sun Belt. I don't want to look past this season, but I definitely look forward to playing in our new conference. My manager is in our Plano office, so I am hoping to make it out there some time for a game.

Back to the topic of GaSo's loss....I wouldn't write them off after one ugly game. It happens, and I will wager that the GaSo/App game will be another great one!

As usual I wouldn't really write either team off, both fan bases hate losing especially to each other, both teams give their best efforts and we all may be wondering where did those teams come from. We'll know what we got after the Chat game. I suspect we look more like we should with the talent we have and much less experimentation.

(09-17-2013 05:06 AM)eagleskins Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 10:13 AM)Pike51 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 09:24 AM)Dusty Eagle Wrote:  And historically deflecting, that's the first time we've lost at Wofford since 2005. Ayers being a great coach doesn't affect the fundamentals of our team not being able to block on offense or tackle on D, and just looking dazed and confused in general.

Anyone who thinks our defense was horrible Saturday night obviously didn't watch the game. After the first series, the defense made adjustments and held, and held, and held. They gave up a FG on the second possession. The late first half TD I refuse to place blame on them. Time mismanagement by the coaching staff led to that TD, period. Then, they played strong in the 2nd half, including a couple of key 4th down stops. It wasn't until they had held on so hard and got worn out that they finally broke. Getting less than 2 minutes of rest between series will do that to you. Our offense was unable to sustain any drives in the 2nd half and didn't give the defense any rest. Our guys were worn out, plain and simple. But they played great defense overall.

I'm not sure you watched the game. Our D was bad. The ran the same play over and over and gashed us. Shotgun dive. Infuriating.

I believe that's a scheme problem more than anything. The first thing our DL does is step laterally, and more times than not they get pushed out of the play. They're also standing up straight and not using their hands effectively....we definitely need someone to step up and fill in Russell's shoes. I'm not very impressed with the LB's so far this year either. That's the area where we're thinnest right now on the defense.

Taking nothing away from Wofford, they are always tough and have beaten us more than their fair share. From what I am seeing of my team, it is a bunch of talented players who havent gelled yet. Happens sometimes after a loss so maybe this wasnt a bad thing for us.

I also think Monken is trying to play a balancing act here. He obviously wants to win this year but I think he definitely has being as competitive as possible next year on his mind. The end result is a team that at times seems confused and never has really seemed to have gotten into a groove yet.

He cant just come out and say we are getting ready for next year (unlike some folks on this board he obviously knows it is going to be a huge adjustment for us) without losing the heart and desire of his seniors, who you gotta think are a little disheartened at no shot at a championship this year.