(12-29-2022 01:01 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 12:44 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 12:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  How many bowls have we had already? I've seen two that were solid. This was one of them. The vast majority have been one sided with one opponent committed and another just punching the clock. I think this game tonight should be an annual between those two. It was, or at least looked to be, the best turnout for one of these so far. Meanwhile Kiffin is eschewing punting and trashing the other one that's on tonight.

I get that fans like to have something to watch, but objectively, most of these games have been pale imitations of what bowl games once were. I've found it to be sad. But, thank you Arkansas and Kansas for an entertaining evening! Kudos to both!

Majority of the games I’ve seen have been great. I think close to 50% of the games have been decided by 1 score or less. Lot of quality competitive games. All this doom and gloom stuff is way overblown. But I guess some people just like to be negative.

Nope. Decades of watching them and the quality just isn't there. Close scores do not necessarily a good game make. Sharp play, solid coaching, good officiating, and hard play make a good game. The game tonight was streaky in a good way with a lot of fight on both sides. Doom and Gloom? Negative? I just call them like I see them in spite of gaslighting by the "We settle for less crowd!"

Been watching the games for decades too and I just don’t see it the same. Not sure how me expressing a different view qualifies as gaslighting. Like I say the majority of games I’ve watched have been enjoyable games. Couple clunkers in there but that’s to be expected. Maybe my standards just aren’t the same as yours.

The gaslighting occurs when you label a differing opinion with a pejorative, which you did "Doom and Gloom" and "Negative". It dismisses the person with the other opinion with what is essentially name calling. Did you play? I don't mind differing opinions. I mind pejoratives and the people who use them! I see the difference between an O Line which looked like a deadly ballet with the precision of blocks #1 and downfield #2 verses fat bellies hanging over belts on legs and lungs which are spent sprinting 10 or 20 yards, or simply use their bulk to push a bit instead of driving the defender out of the way. Saw way too much of that from the OL of Ole Miss all season. Their butts stopped as many of their own ball carriers as the arms of the defenders.

Today's offenses rely, as they do in high school, on the fastest and best athletes at RB, QB, and WR and with fat guys with upper body strength in the lines. The running lanes aren't there because they don't make them. Their bulk partially obscures the running lanes. And it's that way on so many teams. That's not to say the kids playing lack heart, but it is to say they lack proper education in which technique to use, how to coordinate a blocking attack, and in physical conditioning to go with the weight training. It's another reason the passing game is so crucial now.

The balanced teams create running lanes, utilize well orchestrated trap blocks, drive their man out of the lane and their rears with it and it is a thing of beauty to watch.

Most of what I see now looks like a Rugby scrum, especially now that pushing the pile is legal. The rules have followed the lack of skills in order to open the game up.

The skill positions seem to be stronger than those of the past, but the line play has bogged down significantly. And tackling? Yeesh. The matador school of tackling is here. Waive a cape and shout 'Ole as they run by with reaching arms which look like zombie moves and with no leg drive with which to gain momentum and leverage.

Usually, I can expect satisfaction from a Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, and Clemson when it comes to fundamentals and it's no accident that they frequented the final four. I've missed them at Auburn since Dye retired. Look at the amount of talent which seems to go unutilized on some of our rated programs. They fall short because they are sloppy, and usually in the OL and DL. Not picking on A&M but their talent level was solid. Their productivity was not. The issues were in the line and their lack of technique and their lack of blocking philosophy that expected a cohesive effort to open holes for those small but speedy backs. As you look around the country you will see the same over and over again in way too many programs. Somewhere along the way removing the obstacle (blocking your guy out of the lane) was replaced by immovable objects. This is why not enough schools run to the wide side and away from the traffic jam in the middle and the closest sideline. This is why you see sweeps, outside screens, out routes, and a lot more passing. Now that's what I see and why I think what I think, but you are entitled to your opinion too.

(12-28-2022 09:50 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  For people complaining about too many bowl games...this is why. We only get so much football every year, and games like this are amazing. It doesn't matter the records, it's just fun to watch.

Didn’t watch, but couldn’t disagree more! I HATE the stupid gimmicky OT rules in CFB. Whenever a college game goes to OT, I INSTANTLY flip away.

(12-29-2022 01:26 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  

(12-28-2022 09:50 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  For people complaining about too many bowl games...this is why. We only get so much football every year, and games like this are amazing. It doesn't matter the records, it's just fun to watch.

Didn’t watch, but couldn’t disagree more! I HATE the stupid gimmicky OT rules in CFB. Whenever a college game goes to OT, I INSTANTLY flip away.

I wholeheartedly concur. The OT they have ruins the previous 60 minutes of play, isn't a natural way to decide a contest, and ignores defense.

I wage they would settle most contests in 1 OT if each team started at the 50 yard line and actually had to earn a FG attempt, let alone a touchdown.

I'd rather have a tie than what we have now.

(12-29-2022 01:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 01:01 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 12:44 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 12:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  How many bowls have we had already? I've seen two that were solid. This was one of them. The vast majority have been one sided with one opponent committed and another just punching the clock. I think this game tonight should be an annual between those two. It was, or at least looked to be, the best turnout for one of these so far. Meanwhile Kiffin is eschewing punting and trashing the other one that's on tonight.

I get that fans like to have something to watch, but objectively, most of these games have been pale imitations of what bowl games once were. I've found it to be sad. But, thank you Arkansas and Kansas for an entertaining evening! Kudos to both!

Majority of the games I’ve seen have been great. I think close to 50% of the games have been decided by 1 score or less. Lot of quality competitive games. All this doom and gloom stuff is way overblown. But I guess some people just like to be negative.

Nope. Decades of watching them and the quality just isn't there. Close scores do not necessarily a good game make. Sharp play, solid coaching, good officiating, and hard play make a good game. The game tonight was streaky in a good way with a lot of fight on both sides. Doom and Gloom? Negative? I just call them like I see them in spite of gaslighting by the "We settle for less crowd!"

Been watching the games for decades too and I just don’t see it the same. Not sure how me expressing a different view qualifies as gaslighting. Like I say the majority of games I’ve watched have been enjoyable games. Couple clunkers in there but that’s to be expected. Maybe my standards just aren’t the same as yours.

The gaslighting occurs when you label a differing opinion with a pejorative, which you did "Doom and Gloom" and "Negative". It dismisses the person with the other opinion with what is essentially name calling. Did you play? I don't mind differing opinions. I mind pejoratives and the people who use them! I see the difference between an O Line which looked like a deadly ballet with the precision of blocks #1 and downfield #2 verses fat bellies hanging over belts on legs and lungs which are spent sprinting 10 or 20 yards, or simply use their bulk to push a bit instead of driving the defender out of the way. Saw way too much of that from the OL of Ole Miss all season. Their butts stopped as many of their own ball carriers as the arms of the defenders.

Today's offenses rely, as they do in high school, on the fastest and best athletes at RB, QB, and WR and with fat guys with upper body strength in the lines. The running lanes aren't there because they don't make them. Their bulk partially obscures the running lanes. And it's that way on so many teams. That's not to say the kids playing lack heart, but it is to say they lack proper education in which technique to use, how to coordinate a blocking attack, and in physical conditioning to go with the weight training. It's another reason the passing game is so crucial now.

The balanced teams create running lanes, utilize well orchestrated trap blocks, drive their man out of the lane and their rears with it and it is a thing of beauty to watch.

Most of what I see now looks like a Rugby scrum, especially now that pushing the pile is legal. The rules have followed the lack of skills in order to open the game up.

The skill positions seem to be stronger than those of the past, but the line play has bogged down significantly. And tackling? Yeesh. The matador school of tackling is here. Waive a cape and shout 'Ole as they run by with reaching arms which look like zombie moves and with no leg drive with which to gain momentum and leverage.

Usually, I can expect satisfaction from a Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, and Clemson when it comes to fundamentals and it's no accident that they frequented the final four. I've missed them at Auburn since Dye retired. Look at the amount of talent which seems to go unutilized on some of our rated programs. They fall short because they are sloppy, and usually in the OL and DL. Not picking on A&M but their talent level was solid. Their productivity was not. The issues were in the line and their lack of technique and their lack of blocking philosophy that expected a cohesive effort to open holes for those small but speedy backs. As you look around the country you will see the same over and over again in way too many programs. Somewhere along the way removing the obstacle (blocking your guy out of the lane) was replaced by immovable objects. This is why not enough schools run to the wide side and away from the traffic jam in the middle and the closest sideline. This is why you see sweeps, outside screens, out routes, and a lot more passing. Now that's what I see and why I think what I think, but you are entitled to your opinion too.

Hey I can respect what you posted here even if it doesn’t really match up with what I’m seeing in the games. However, your previous comment that only 2 of the 26 bowl games this year have been “solid” games, to me, reads as a seriously pessimistic view on the current bowl season. I’ve read a lot of your posts over the years, and I can readily admit I do not know as much about the game as you. Maybe that’s a blessing though because like I say I’ve enjoyed a lot more than 2 games. At the end of the day our standards are obviously different and I’m sure we’re both fine with that.

(12-29-2022 02:22 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 01:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 01:01 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 12:44 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Majority of the games I’ve seen have been great. I think close to 50% of the games have been decided by 1 score or less. Lot of quality competitive games. All this doom and gloom stuff is way overblown. But I guess some people just like to be negative.

Nope. Decades of watching them and the quality just isn't there. Close scores do not necessarily a good game make. Sharp play, solid coaching, good officiating, and hard play make a good game. The game tonight was streaky in a good way with a lot of fight on both sides. Doom and Gloom? Negative? I just call them like I see them in spite of gaslighting by the "We settle for less crowd!"

Been watching the games for decades too and I just don’t see it the same. Not sure how me expressing a different view qualifies as gaslighting. Like I say the majority of games I’ve watched have been enjoyable games. Couple clunkers in there but that’s to be expected. Maybe my standards just aren’t the same as yours.

The gaslighting occurs when you label a differing opinion with a pejorative, which you did "Doom and Gloom" and "Negative". It dismisses the person with the other opinion with what is essentially name calling. Did you play? I don't mind differing opinions. I mind pejoratives and the people who use them! I see the difference between an O Line which looked like a deadly ballet with the precision of blocks #1 and downfield #2 verses fat bellies hanging over belts on legs and lungs which are spent sprinting 10 or 20 yards, or simply use their bulk to push a bit instead of driving the defender out of the way. Saw way too much of that from the OL of Ole Miss all season. Their butts stopped as many of their own ball carriers as the arms of the defenders.

Today's offenses rely, as they do in high school, on the fastest and best athletes at RB, QB, and WR and with fat guys with upper body strength in the lines. The running lanes aren't there because they don't make them. Their bulk partially obscures the running lanes. And it's that way on so many teams. That's not to say the kids playing lack heart, but it is to say they lack proper education in which technique to use, how to coordinate a blocking attack, and in physical conditioning to go with the weight training. It's another reason the passing game is so crucial now.

The balanced teams create running lanes, utilize well orchestrated trap blocks, drive their man out of the lane and their rears with it and it is a thing of beauty to watch.

Most of what I see now looks like a Rugby scrum, especially now that pushing the pile is legal. The rules have followed the lack of skills in order to open the game up.

The skill positions seem to be stronger than those of the past, but the line play has bogged down significantly. And tackling? Yeesh. The matador school of tackling is here. Waive a cape and shout 'Ole as they run by with reaching arms which look like zombie moves and with no leg drive with which to gain momentum and leverage.

Usually, I can expect satisfaction from a Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, and Clemson when it comes to fundamentals and it's no accident that they frequented the final four. I've missed them at Auburn since Dye retired. Look at the amount of talent which seems to go unutilized on some of our rated programs. They fall short because they are sloppy, and usually in the OL and DL. Not picking on A&M but their talent level was solid. Their productivity was not. The issues were in the line and their lack of technique and their lack of blocking philosophy that expected a cohesive effort to open holes for those small but speedy backs. As you look around the country you will see the same over and over again in way too many programs. Somewhere along the way removing the obstacle (blocking your guy out of the lane) was replaced by immovable objects. This is why not enough schools run to the wide side and away from the traffic jam in the middle and the closest sideline. This is why you see sweeps, outside screens, out routes, and a lot more passing. Now that's what I see and why I think what I think, but you are entitled to your opinion too.

Hey I can respect what you posted here even if it doesn’t really match up with what I’m seeing in the games. However, your previous comment that only 2 of the 26 bowl games this year have been “solid” games, to me, reads as a seriously pessimistic view on the current bowl season. I’ve read a lot of your posts over the years, and I can readily admit I do not know as much about the game as you. Maybe that’s a blessing though because like I say I’ve enjoyed a lot more than 2 games. At the end of the day our standards are obviously different and I’m sure we’re both fine with that.

This statement is all that is needed when 2 different standards, or opinions, are present. I'm glad you enjoyed them. Posting too frequently is a debate rather than a personal declaration. In our world today there is way too much "You're wrong!" when people simply disagree in their appraisal of any topic. Freedom is the permission to have different opinions without condemning the persons who hold them or forcing them to surrender their opinion to the satisfaction of a group. Improvements are made in the wake of differences. The Emperor's New Set of Clothes was written about the other.

(12-29-2022 01:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 01:01 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 12:44 AM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 12:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  How many bowls have we had already? I've seen two that were solid. This was one of them. The vast majority have been one sided with one opponent committed and another just punching the clock. I think this game tonight should be an annual between those two. It was, or at least looked to be, the best turnout for one of these so far. Meanwhile Kiffin is eschewing punting and trashing the other one that's on tonight.

I get that fans like to have something to watch, but objectively, most of these games have been pale imitations of what bowl games once were. I've found it to be sad. But, thank you Arkansas and Kansas for an entertaining evening! Kudos to both!

Majority of the games I’ve seen have been great. I think close to 50% of the games have been decided by 1 score or less. Lot of quality competitive games. All this doom and gloom stuff is way overblown. But I guess some people just like to be negative.

Nope. Decades of watching them and the quality just isn't there. Close scores do not necessarily a good game make. Sharp play, solid coaching, good officiating, and hard play make a good game. The game tonight was streaky in a good way with a lot of fight on both sides. Doom and Gloom? Negative? I just call them like I see them in spite of gaslighting by the "We settle for less crowd!"

Been watching the games for decades too and I just don’t see it the same. Not sure how me expressing a different view qualifies as gaslighting. Like I say the majority of games I’ve watched have been enjoyable games. Couple clunkers in there but that’s to be expected. Maybe my standards just aren’t the same as yours.

The gaslighting occurs when you label a differing opinion with a pejorative, which you did "Doom and Gloom" and "Negative". It dismisses the person with the other opinion with what is essentially name calling. Did you play? I don't mind differing opinions. I mind pejoratives and the people who use them! I see the difference between an O Line which looked like a deadly ballet with the precision of blocks #1 and downfield #2 verses fat bellies hanging over belts on legs and lungs which are spent sprinting 10 or 20 yards, or simply use their bulk to push a bit instead of driving the defender out of the way. Saw way too much of that from the OL of Ole Miss all season. Their butts stopped as many of their own ball carriers as the arms of the defenders.

Today's offenses rely, as they do in high school, on the fastest and best athletes at RB, QB, and WR and with fat guys with upper body strength in the lines. The running lanes aren't there because they don't make them. Their bulk partially obscures the running lanes. And it's that way on so many teams. That's not to say the kids playing lack heart, but it is to say they lack proper education in which technique to use, how to coordinate a blocking attack, and in physical conditioning to go with the weight training. It's another reason the passing game is so crucial now.

The balanced teams create running lanes, utilize well orchestrated trap blocks, drive their man out of the lane and their rears with it and it is a thing of beauty to watch.

Most of what I see now looks like a Rugby scrum, especially now that pushing the pile is legal. The rules have followed the lack of skills in order to open the game up.

The skill positions seem to be stronger than those of the past, but the line play has bogged down significantly. And tackling? Yeesh. The matador school of tackling is here. Waive a cape and shout 'Ole as they run by with reaching arms which look like zombie moves and with no leg drive with which to gain momentum and leverage.

Usually, I can expect satisfaction from a Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, and Clemson when it comes to fundamentals and it's no accident that they frequented the final four. I've missed them at Auburn since Dye retired. Look at the amount of talent which seems to go unutilized on some of our rated programs. They fall short because they are sloppy, and usually in the OL and DL. Not picking on A&M but their talent level was solid. Their productivity was not. The issues were in the line and their lack of technique and their lack of blocking philosophy that expected a cohesive effort to open holes for those small but speedy backs. As you look around the country you will see the same over and over again in way too many programs. Somewhere along the way removing the obstacle (blocking your guy out of the lane) was replaced by immovable objects. This is why not enough schools run to the wide side and away from the traffic jam in the middle and the closest sideline. This is why you see sweeps, outside screens, out routes, and a lot more passing. Now that's what I see and why I think what I think, but you are entitled to your opinion too.

There was better technique in the lines, but with the size and speed now, they simply would not match up. The Texas 1969 MNC had a 276 lb. tackle with everyone else on the line 210 or below. Now they were a wishbone team, so they weren't particularly big for the time, but we had relatively normal sized people playing in those days, not the manufactured 300-350 lb. linemen.

Now the skill position people of those days could play anytime and they were tougher. My son didn't think a Johnny Rodgers or Herschel Walker or Earl Campbell would do much nowadays. They would still be amazing. Archie would still rack up amazing numbers.

(12-29-2022 01:26 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  

(12-28-2022 09:50 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  For people complaining about too many bowl games...this is why. We only get so much football every year, and games like this are amazing. It doesn't matter the records, it's just fun to watch.

Didn’t watch, but couldn’t disagree more! I HATE the stupid gimmicky OT rules in CFB. Whenever a college game goes to OT, I INSTANTLY flip away.

I hate the "penalty kick" portion. Going for 2 after TDs starting with the 2nd OT would make 7 or 8 OT games even more rare than they were. If you don't like the long games, just go back to having ties after say 4 OTs. And give them the option of kicking or going for two in the last OT.

OT stuff has never been good. I'm all for having new rules for the minor bowl games so we can see them in action.

(12-28-2022 09:50 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  For people complaining about too many bowl games...this is why. We only get so much football every year, and games like this are amazing. It doesn't matter the records, it's just fun to watch.

Yup - if some POSTERs had their way, neither of these teams would have played in a bowl.

Was a heck of a game last night. It should have never gotten close to OT but instead of running out the clock the Hogs for some unexplained reason decide to run a reverse which resulted in a fumble (well not really since the player was down but alas). As others have said it was a great effort by two 6-6 teams in front of 52k fans. That is what bowl season is supposed to be about and used to be about before the era of portals, NIL's, and playoff expansion.

I'm not a big fan of the new OT rules, it's hard to believe that this is the best they could come up with. Better rule would be that if your opponent kicks an extra point after a TD and you go last in that round, you have to go for 2. Game over either way.

...as to OT, my pop had a pretty interesting 'plan' that for the most part would have given resolution rather quickly, but still 'multiple opportunities' to win:

first team gets the ball at midfield, and gets four downs to move the ball as far as they can (obviously maxing out with a TD).

second team gets the ball at either midfield (IF the first team scores a TD) OR gets the ball at the spot where the first team drove it down to; second team gets four plays to move it past midfield; if so, they win by a point, if not, the other team wins by a point. Obviously if they trade TDs, the next OT starts, and maybe move the ball back to the 35 or something...

for example without a TD, the first team drives from midfield down to the 23 yard line in four plays (FGs not applicable in this scenario); the second team gets the ball at their 23, and has four plays to move it past midfield (i.e. gain more yards in four plays than the first team did).

Somewhat 'old school / field position' style, but could work... I think the biggest flaw in the current OT is that they still adhere to the "1st and 10" rule; just get four plays from the 25, no markers. It's amazing that a team can have a 12 play drive in OT (even more if a penalty or two crop up)...