time to post my week 1 card so far

Not to derail the thread, but....

Gorman (LV) plays Cedar Hill this Saturday night.
Martell popping off on social media.
Chill got speed. I'm not sure I'd mouth off if I was him.
Ags gonna be glad ol Tate decommited, OSU is gonna say ooops.
 
pressitup said:
Not to derail the thread, but....

Gorman (LV) plays Cedar Hill this Saturday night.
Martell popping off on social media.
Chill got speed. I'm not sure I'd mouth off if I was him.
Ags gonna be glad ol Tate decommited, OSU is gonna say ooops.
Click to expand...

Of course this made me look .. Hanks with an away game at the Andress Eagles. F the eagles.

Gorman just churning out players now. It's like anti-recruiting. Parents are moving into the area to get their talented kids on the team.
 
clowncar said:
GW, the answer is Shane Beuchele
Click to expand...

with all due respect for a guy who posts as clowncar, i'm yet again hearing Swoopes will start from a different source.

What does starting mean other than relieving pressure on the second semester freshman? I'd assume we wait til at least the 2nd drive for Buechele. If Swoopes somehow leads a TD drive then I imagine we'll stick with him for a bit, but if not I expect the training wheels will come off real quick...

It makes sense, try to take the spotlight off of the kid as much as humanly possible when we've been starved for a QB since the 2009 season, but I'm not sure that's doable. Also not sure if Charlie has the brains to think this far ahead, but I hope the new OC does or maybe someone else got in his ear and convinced him.

I'm expecting a standard Charlie Strong, conservative game plan trying to milk the clock as much as we can from the opening kickoff. Swoopes begins then gives the reins to Buechele with a fair amount of Heard coming in to run the Wildcat (especially if the two QBs struggle), but I'm also unsure the game plan will change if we are getting blown out because we don't really have a high-flying option. Maybe under? Think we're gonna have to start fast with a stop on defense, which we did last year only to get rocked, but the terrible punt on our first possession put us in a really tough spot.

Think the mortgage should go on ND receiving the opening kickoff. Not sure about either coach's tendencies, but Kelly has got to want to get his offense on the field to kill our spirit and Strong should want to use as little Swoopes as possible after that experiment hasn't worked for years (thanks Mack!)
 
GWarner27 said:
with all due respect for a guy who posts as clowncar, i'm yet again hearing Swoopes will start from a different source.

What does starting mean other than relieving pressure on the second semester freshman? I'd assume we wait til at least the 2nd drive for Buechele. If Swoopes somehow leads a TD drive then I imagine we'll stick with him for a bit, but if not I expect the training wheels will come off real quick...

It makes sense, try to take the spotlight off of the kid as much as humanly possible when we've been starved for a QB since the 2009 season, but I'm not sure that's doable. Also not sure if Charlie has the brains to think this far ahead, but I hope the new OC does or maybe someone else got in his ear and convinced him.

I'm expecting a standard Charlie Strong, conservative game plan trying to milk the clock as much as we can from the opening kickoff. Swoopes begins then gives the reins to Buechele with a fair amount of Heard coming in to run the Wildcat (especially if the two QBs struggle), but I'm also unsure the game plan will change if we are getting blown out because we don't really have a high-flying option. Maybe under? Think we're gonna have to start fast with a stop on defense, which we did last year only to get rocked, but the terrible punt on our first possession put us in a really tough spot.

Think the mortgage should go on ND receiving the opening kickoff. Not sure about either coach's tendencies, but Kelly has got to want to get his offense on the field to kill our spirit and Strong should want to use as little Swoopes as possible after that experiment hasn't worked for years (thanks Mack!)
Click to expand...


Pretty sure we are playing fast this season. You can play hurry-up and still make conservative calls but I think Texas plays faster and more open than we have in a long, long time. I don't think Gilbert (BGSU and Tulsa) knows another way. Even dating back to his time at Eastern Illinois it was fast and aggressive.

My source isn't a player or coach but it is a pretty solid source with ties there. I mean we can talk semantics of who plays the first drive but I am pretty sure Beuchele takes a majority of the snaps in that game. I tend to agree with your philosophy, it is easier to start Swoopes and then bring in beuchele. Harder to go back the other way, imo... unless the choice is pretty clear.

Two articles I was reading (a few minutes ago) were stating that there is concern about Beuchele's size and ability to take hits. shrug.

Should be a fun game .. looks like Strong is being pretty coy about who will be the actual starter but I am sticking by Shuttlesworth as far as who will be starting.
 
GWarner27 said:
with all due respect for a guy who posts as clowncar, i'm yet again hearing Swoopes will start from a different source.

What does starting mean other than relieving pressure on the second semester freshman? I'd assume we wait til at least the 2nd drive for Buechele. If Swoopes somehow leads a TD drive then I imagine we'll stick with him for a bit, but if not I expect the training wheels will come off real quick...

It makes sense, try to take the spotlight off of the kid as much as humanly possible when we've been starved for a QB since the 2009 season, but I'm not sure that's doable. Also not sure if Charlie has the brains to think this far ahead, but I hope the new OC does or maybe someone else got in his ear and convinced him.

I'm expecting a standard Charlie Strong, conservative game plan trying to milk the clock as much as we can from the opening kickoff. Swoopes begins then gives the reins to Buechele with a fair amount of Heard coming in to run the Wildcat (especially if the two QBs struggle), but I'm also unsure the game plan will change if we are getting blown out because we don't really have a high-flying option. Maybe under? Think we're gonna have to start fast with a stop on defense, which we did last year only to get rocked, but the terrible punt on our first possession put us in a really tough spot.

Think the mortgage should go on ND receiving the opening kickoff. Not sure about either coach's tendencies, but Kelly has got to want to get his offense on the field to kill our spirit and Strong should want to use as little Swoopes as possible after that experiment hasn't worked for years (thanks Mack!)
Click to expand...

Please have a QB for once. I can't believe I'm saying this.
No team in TX should be without a quality QB. From jr high up.
Oh wait, the Ags have ..........doh.
 
Really happy to see you on New Mexico St and SJSU. I'm on both for sizable wagers (rare that I lock in plays early but I'm stuck with 7.5 and 4 now) and am high on both teams in general this year.

Great thread as always
 
FWIW, since I mentioned it another thread about liking mtsu a lot this year .. they have suffered some not so bueno attrition. Have to drop them pretty significantly in pr. Shame. I was almost sure to be on them against Vanderbilt (assuming line came what I expect them to make it) before but now probably will avoid.
 
sirwinzalot said:
Good luck. I like the mizzou bet and will likely be joining you on that. Only thing that sucks is Brady was booted from team and he was one of our top pass rushers last year. Just like the idea of getting an SEC team with athletes and catching those points vs a big 12 team. Concerns would be can mizzou keep up offensively. I expect Lock to progress a lot this year. Guy is too talented not to progress a lot this year. Good thing is he's very athletic and he'll need it with the brutal offensive line we are going to put on the field.
Click to expand...

I thought they looked a little more competent in the spring game and apparently have practiced better as an offense this summer. So maybe Heupel has them in a little better position to start this year. Sometimes when you have a great defense, it is easy to not be aggressive on offense when your offense is sputtering .... go into "try not to lose" mode instead of playing to take the game. I am hoping that the offense playing a little better is not a product of the defense stepping back because that would make for a tough week 1 for me and a tough season for mizzou
 
Added LSU/Wisconsin under to my leans list. Gonna be tough to pull the trigger on this game but as the dings continue to add up for the offensive side of the ball (Some will play through, some won't), the under gets more appealing.
 
clowncar said:
FWIW, since I mentioned it another thread about liking mtsu a lot this year .. they have suffered some not so bueno attrition. Have to drop them pretty significantly in pr. Shame. I was almost sure to be on them against Vanderbilt (assuming line came what I expect them to make it) before but now probably will avoid.
Click to expand...

Ive been out of loop and can't find anything. What happened?
 
clowncar said:
Pretty sure we are playing fast this season. You can play hurry-up and still make conservative calls but I think Texas plays faster and more open than we have in a long, long time. I don't think Gilbert (BGSU and Tulsa) knows another way. Even dating back to his time at Eastern Illinois it was fast and aggressive.

My source isn't a player or coach but it is a pretty solid source with ties there. I mean we can talk semantics of who plays the first drive but I am pretty sure Beuchele takes a majority of the snaps in that game. I tend to agree with your philosophy, it is easier to start Swoopes and then bring in beuchele. Harder to go back the other way, imo... unless the choice is pretty clear.

Two articles I was reading (a few minutes ago) were stating that there is concern about Beuchele's size and ability to take hits. shrug.

Should be a fun game .. looks like Strong is being pretty coy about who will be the actual starter but I am sticking by Shuttlesworth as far as who will be starting.
Click to expand...

fair and you know his track record far better than I, but I hope he's smart enough to realize that we're not winning a 45-35 type of game. Running a hurry up to punt, Chip Kelly style, sounds like a disaster that'll push me to Netflix far earlier than I want
 
GWarner27 said:
fair and you know his track record far better than I, but I hope he's smart enough to realize that we're not winning a 45-35 type of game. Running a hurry up to punt, Chip Kelly style, sounds like a disaster that'll push me to Netflix far earlier than I want
Click to expand...

It will be our most productive offense in years. ND having all kinds of off the field problems right now. Texas is actually becoming a potential play that needs to be examined and I had hoped they would make a mistake and total this game lower but they got it right.
 
[TABLE="class: statistics_table, width: 100%"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="class: statistics_table_header, colspan: 10"]Middle Tenn St[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: statistics_cellrightborder statistics_cellbottomborder"]Date[/TH]
[TH="class: statistics_cellrightborder statistics_cellbottomborder, align: center"]Pos[/TH]
[TH="class: statistics_cellrightborder statistics_cellbottomborder"]Player[/TH]
[TH="class: statistics_cellrightborder statistics_cellbottomborder"]Injury[/TH]
[TH="class: statistics_cellrightborder statistics_cellbottomborder"]Status[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: otherStatistics_table_alternateRow statistics_cellrightborder"]08/19/16[/TD]
[TD="class: otherStatistics_table_alternateRow statistics_cellrightborder, align: center"]RB[/TD]
[TD="class: otherStatistics_table_alternateRow statistics_cellrightborder"]Shane Tucker[/TD]
[TD="class: otherStatistics_table_alternateRow statistics_cellrightborder"]Leg[/TD]
[TD="class: otherStatistics_table_alternateRow statistics_cellrightborder"]out for season[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: statistics_table_row statistics_cellrightborder"]08/19/16[/TD]
[TD="class: statistics_table_row statistics_cellrightborder, align: center"]WR[/TD]
[TD="class: statistics_table_row statistics_cellrightborder"]Terry Pettis[/TD]
[TD="class: statistics_table_row statistics_cellrightborder"]Leg[/TD]
[TD="class: statistics_table_row statistics_cellrightborder"]out for season

[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
 
And the Tennessee Vols wr who left the team after being suspended and is now at MTSU....

2016:[FONT=verb_regularregular] Suffered a leg injury late in preseason camp and was lost for the season … Was penciled in as a starter prior to the injury.[/FONT]
 
Yeah, the RB isn't a big loss, imo, but the TE and receivers could have been impact. They still have James that looks like an absolute star though.
 
It just got bet way up and turned it into a play the other direction.

Again, I watched the Cal spring game and it was a lightning pace and Hawaii will also be more fast paced this year. Possible bad legs for defenders too on the travel. Think Cal is going to miss Nickerson defensively this year ..... Still i made it under 60 originally so after this move, I will pay to see them hit exactly 68,69 or score in the seventies.

Also eliminating Hawaii plus the pts as a potential play.
 
I think that everything that deserved to win, won tonight in the opener. Over winner was deserved, Cal ml winner was deserved, hawaii plus the pts winner was deserved, both team totals over the number were deserved. Grats if you had any of it.

A few takeaways,

1. California is going to struggle for a variety of reasons this year:
A. They have bad line play on both offense and defense. Defensively they got pushed around by Hawaii all night. They were without a key lineman tonight on offense though.
B. Their tackling is just very bad. No two ways about it.
C. They had no pass rush
D. They lost too much at the WR position. The lack of real playmakers was noticable. Some of the big plays tonight were just screens that were poorly defended by hawaii. good luck in conference play with that.
E. Outside of a hard hitting safety, I wasn't impressed with the secondary.
F. No running game to support their passing game.

Offensively, they are trying to hide their offensive line with bubble screens where Webb doesn't have to hold it long and trying to wear down the opposing D by playing really fast between snaps.

Webb will be ok but he was a little bit lost in the offense in my opinion. He missed some throws early but settled down and played better as the game went. BUT they didn't ask anything of him.

Hawaii

I thought they were generally better looking than a year ago. The QB made good decisions and threw a decent ball most of the night. The offensive line will be a strength all year for them. They just mauled the Cal DL. Ball carriers still haven't learned to protect the football. it has been an ongoing problem there and cannot be considered a fluke anymore. Basically, everything about their team (other than their secondary tackling- coverage was ok) was pretty average looking to me which means they should win a few games this year and be competitive in some others we might not think they should be.

Special teams really hurt the warriors too. The biggest play of the game was the penalty on the punt. Undeniably huge as it set up the fumbled kickoff too. Had a few other turnovers and gave away a lot of yards early with the onside kick. They also didn't cover kickoffs well. Punter played well when given the chance. Warriors also failed to make the big play on several fourth down plays.

Cal is better than Hawaii but not three td better over a large subset, i don't think.

Kickers were good. something like 14-14 or thereabouts in the kicks which was amazing given they slipped on several kickoffs.

You better have some big numbers backing cal in conference and even then you better make sure they are playing a backdoor open opponent.
 
clowncar said:
I think that everything that deserved to win, won tonight in the opener. Over winner was deserved, Cal ml winner was deserved, hawaii plus the pts winner was deserved, both team totals over the number were deserved. Grats if you had any of it.

A few takeaways,

1. California is going to struggle for a variety of reasons this year:
A. They have bad line play on both offense and defense. Defensively they got pushed around by Hawaii all night. They were without a key lineman tonight on offense though.
B. Their tackling is just very bad. No two ways about it.
C. They had no pass rush
D. They lost too much at the WR position. The lack of real playmakers was noticable. Some of the big plays tonight were just screens that were poorly defended by hawaii. good luck in conference play with that.
E. Outside of a hard hitting safety, I wasn't impressed with the secondary.
F. No running game to support their passing game.

Offensively, they are trying to hide their offensive line with bubble screens where Webb doesn't have to hold it long and trying to wear down the opposing D by playing really fast between snaps.

Webb will be ok but he was a little bit lost in the offense in my opinion. He missed some throws early but settled down and played better as the game went. BUT they didn't ask anything of him.

Hawaii

I thought they were generally better looking than a year ago. The QB made good decisions and threw a decent ball most of the night. The offensive line will be a strength all year for them. They just mauled the Cal DL. Ball carriers still haven't learned to protect the football. it has been an ongoing problem there and cannot be considered a fluke anymore. Basically, everything about their team (other than their secondary tackling- coverage was ok) was pretty average looking to me which means they should win a few games this year and be competitive in some others we might not think they should be.

Special teams really hurt the warriors too. The biggest play of the game was the penalty on the punt. Undeniably huge as it set up the fumbled kickoff too. Had a few other turnovers and gave away a lot of yards early with the onside kick. They also didn't cover kickoffs well. Punter played well when given the chance. Warriors also failed to make the big play on several fourth down plays.

Cal is better than Hawaii but not three td better over a large subset, i don't think.

Kickers were good. something like 14-14 or thereabouts in the kicks which was amazing given they slipped on several kickoffs.

You better have some big numbers backing cal in conference and even then you better make sure they are playing a backdoor open opponent.
Click to expand...

That's Spav to a T.
I doubt that will change all year.
 
For perspective on how bad Cal looked while they gained 630 yards ...

Hawaii lost four fumbles
Hawaii lost an interception
Hawaii gave a first down during a punt play by leaping penalty
Hawaii failed on opening kickoff onside.
Cal did not turn the ball over once


Cal still didn't cover.

I guess Cal did drop the easiest TD catch in cfb history which cost them a net 4 pts and the cover. But you get the idea ... have the equivalent of +6 in turnovers (punt penalty is equivalent) and were 2-2 on fourth compared to 1-1 on fourth (net plus one on fourth down change of possession opportunities) ... and still did not cover against Hawaii.

Also, I think almost all of those were negative to the under .. all three fourth down attempt successes, the interception, all four fumbles, the punt penalty play, the opening onside kick attempt. Don't get me wrong, the over was the play with over 1000 yards of offense, fast pace and tackling that made flag football players wince. I think you will also find overwhelming net negative in penalty yards between the offense and defense as well. Plus the kicking perfection when the kickers plant foot was bad at 14-14 coupled with none of the turnovers occurring in the scoring third of the field means that the only empty quality drive of the game was the time running out at the end with the ball on the half yard line. That is a rarity in the college game. So while the over was the right side, it wasn't as far the right side as the score might indicate. But the under was the wrong side anyway. Obviously I have some regret taking a game late after a big move and then going against the move because it moved into my range while passing on the winning side lean I had. Also regret watching the game because I was excited to start watching the sport again and this is the type of game (as you all know) from a style perspective that I cannot stand watching. Killed the buzz .. as did losing game 1.
 
CC, thanks for this. Dead on. So glad you mentioned the Onside Kick on opening KO and Punt Penalty - I consider both of those TO's as well. And both led to TD's. You could make an argument that Hawaii could have won the game though they couldn't stop Cal. I had put a 1/2 unit on Hawaii +21 and then decided I wanted nothing to do with the game and got Cal -19.5 early yesterday - so got lucky to start the year. Especially on that last play of the game - no idea what Dykes was doing at the end - thought for sure they'd score and the RB only missed it by a 1/2 yard.

Cal sure looks like they're in for a very long year.

Thanks for all your efforts.


QUOTE=clowncar;2923954]For perspective on how bad Cal looked while they gained 630 yards ...

Hawaii lost four fumbles
Hawaii lost an interception
Hawaii gave a first down during a punt play by leaping penalty
Hawaii failed on opening kickoff onside.
Cal did not turn the ball over once


Cal still didn't cover.

I guess Cal did drop the easiest TD catch in cfb history which cost them a net 4 pts and the cover. But you get the idea ... have the equivalent of +6 in turnovers (punt penalty is equivalent) and were 2-2 on fourth compared to 1-1 on fourth (net plus one on fourth down change of possession opportunities) ... and still did not cover against Hawaii.

Also, I think almost all of those were negative to the under .. all three fourth down attempt successes, the interception, all four fumbles, the punt penalty play, the opening onside kick attempt. Don't get me wrong, the over was the play with over 1000 yards of offense, fast pace and tackling that made flag football players wince. I think you will also find overwhelming net negative in penalty yards between the offense and defense as well. Plus the kicking perfection when the kickers plant foot was bad at 14-14 coupled with none of the turnovers occurring in the scoring third of the field means that the only empty quality drive of the game was the time running out at the end with the ball on the half yard line. That is a rarity in the college game. So while the over was the right side, it wasn't as far the right side as the score might indicate. But the under was the wrong side anyway. Obviously I have some regret taking a game late after a big move and then going against the move because it moved into my range while passing on the winning side lean I had. Also regret watching the game because I was excited to start watching the sport again and this is the type of game (as you all know) from a style perspective that I cannot stand watching. Killed the buzz .. as did losing game 1.[/QUOTE]
 
The irony is that I think Dykes was mad at his offense and that is why he was running plays at the end. He did not like their execution all game long. Note he also kept Webb in on the final drive so it wasn't about getting backups quality snaps either.

I wouldn't mind seeing a replay of that last play, not sure whether he landed on top of the defender or not and might have scored (angle bad too so probably short regardless) but never got a good look at it. That would have been a brutal bad beat for anyone who had Hawaii.

Grats on the middle, btw. Very well done.

My problem with the onside has more to do with the timing. I understand it later in the game when your defense has proven they cannot stop them ... but you have to make Cal prove that first, particularly when you are the underdog. Stay in the game as long as you can when you are presumably three TD's worse and let the pressure get to the other team as you gain confidence. That is why I thought the onside kick was such a bad idea.

The leaping penalty, which was a good call, was the play that removed any chance of Hawaii winning with the snowball effect it had. A few minute drive by Hawaii there would have eliminated just about anything over one more Cal score and left them in range at the half and left the opponent in a little more fear at the half.

I also chuckled when the announcers kept commenting on California having letdowns with a big lead as if they were not playing equally bad defense on all the other drives.
 
Great thoughts. I fell asleep after the first quarter (even dosed off during the opening quarter). Was excited for first game, didn't last long. Terrible game
 
Totally agree on the onsides. Hawaii coach has to give his team a chance and really put them in a hole with that one. To me that's the same as a TO. Leaping penalty was indeed a game changing play as Hawaii had gotten very few stops and was competitive there - huge blow to the D and think they only stopped Cal once after that. It was the right call though I think the Hawaii kid was just kind of goofing around as he wasn't even close. Bad coaching again as I doubt he knew the rule there. Yeah, I was crapping my pants that whole last drive - but think you're right about what Dykes was doing. On the last play Hawaii actually run blitzed and the RB still almost made it in from the 5 - Hawaii's D was totally gassed. But still think Dykes has to take the Victory formation there at the end. Not a class act. I looked up Cal's schedule after the game and man it's brutal. I can see them winning 3 games this year. Oh, saw you in BA's thread on the other site - you both are must reads. Again, thanks.
 
[TABLE="width: 701"]
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup><tbody>[TR]
[TD]Tulsa[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] off Yards/Play[/TD]
[TD]opp def avg[/TD]
[TD]variance[/TD]
[TD]% change[/TD]
[TD]def Yards/play[/TD]
[TD]opp off avg[/TD]
[TD]variance[/TD]
[TD]% change[/TD]
[TD]net difference to avg[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]7.19[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.54[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.65[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]30%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.86[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.09[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.77[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-15%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.88[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.74[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.11[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.63[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]10%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.74[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.83[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.09[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.72[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.63[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.79[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.84[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]38%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]9.09[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.8[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-2.29[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-34%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.45[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]5.18[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.48[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-5%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.79[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.16[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.63[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-10%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.93[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]5.26[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.61[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.35[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-6%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.25[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.48[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.77[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-17%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.12[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]5.38[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.38[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.31[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.67[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.36[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.36[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.59[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.51[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.08[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]20%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.33[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.15[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.18[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-19%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]4.99[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.32[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.33[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-6%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.21[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.29[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.08[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.25[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.64[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.54[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.1[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.96[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.12[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.84[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-20%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.74[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.61[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.79[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.82[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]14%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.86[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.26[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-19%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.44[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]5.01[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.65[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.64[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-11%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8.19[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.35[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.84[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-29%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-2.48[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.38[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.81[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.57[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]10%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.46[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.76[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-36%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.13[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.78[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.55[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.23[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]22%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.38[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.33[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-2.05[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-38%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.82[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]SJSU[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] off Yards/Play[/TD]
[TD]opp def avg[/TD]
[TD]variance[/TD]
[TD]% change[/TD]
[TD]def Yards/play[/TD]
[TD]opp off avg[/TD]
[TD]variance[/TD]
[TD]% change[/TD]
[TD]net difference to avg[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]5.47[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.71[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.24[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-4%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.65[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.4[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.75[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]12%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.51[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]3.67[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.44[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-2.77[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-43%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.17[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.12[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.05[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-21%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-3.82[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.99[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.71[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]12%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3.98[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.58[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]13%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.31[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]5.72[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.37[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.35[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.9[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.39[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.51[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-9%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.17[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.23[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.06[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.17[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.62[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.45[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.39[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2.51[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.66[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-2.15[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-46%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.08[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.67[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.41[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-7%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-2.56[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.47[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.11[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.36[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.44[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.83[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.61[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-10%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.25[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]4.2[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.9[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-14%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.31[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.02[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.71[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]12%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.01[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.37[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.73[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.64[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]11%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.45[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.05[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.69[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.97[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.55[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.42[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]26%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.59[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.85[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.74[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-36%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.32[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.41[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.86[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.55[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]32%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.2[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.05[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.15[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-19%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]3.92[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.38[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-26%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.71[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.23[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.52[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]24%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.14[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
 
GridironGems said:
Great thoughts. I fell asleep after the first quarter (even dosed off during the opening quarter). Was excited for first game, didn't last long. Terrible game
Click to expand...

I was disappointed in the product and mad 15 minutes in when I knew that I both made a bad bet and was going to lose it. I hate the fast pace (cheating) quick snap offense and no tackling type game as a general rule. And i will whine about it as a fan until the cows come home (They are wandering free now that BAR is off the market).
 
lvmike32 said:
Totally agree on the onsides. Hawaii coach has to give his team a chance and really put them in a hole with that one. To me that's the same as a TO. Leaping penalty was indeed a game changing play as Hawaii had gotten very few stops and was competitive there - huge blow to the D and think they only stopped Cal once after that. It was the right call though I think the Hawaii kid was just kind of goofing around as he wasn't even close. Bad coaching again as I doubt he knew the rule there. Yeah, I was crapping my pants that whole last drive - but think you're right about what Dykes was doing. On the last play Hawaii actually run blitzed and the RB still almost made it in from the 5 - Hawaii's D was totally gassed. But still think Dykes has to take the Victory formation there at the end. Not a class act. I looked up Cal's schedule after the game and man it's brutal. I can see them winning 3 games this year. Oh, saw you in BA's thread on the other site - you both are must reads. Again, thanks.
Click to expand...

Ya I never post there and don't read a ton of opinions there. I like his threads.
 
[TABLE="width: 266"]
<colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup><tbody>[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]Strength of Schedule for Opponents per Phil Steele[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tulsa[/TD]
[TD]TOSOS[/TD]
[TD]SJSU[/TD]
[TD]SJOSOS[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]FAU[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]97[/TD]
[TD]afa[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]90[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]UNM[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]108[/TD]
[TD]orst[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]10[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]oklahoma[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]20[/TD]
[TD]fresno st[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]63[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]houston[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]112[/TD]
[TD]auburn[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]ulm[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]98[/TD]
[TD]unlv[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]80[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]ecu[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]62[/TD]
[TD]sdsu[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]116[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]mem[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]66[/TD]
[TD]unm[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]108[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]smu[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]40[/TD]
[TD]byu[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]71[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]ucf[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]73[/TD]
[TD]nev[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]115[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]cin[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]76[/TD]
[TD]haw[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]69[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]navy[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]77[/TD]
[TD]boise[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]104[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]tulane[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]84[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Average[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]76.1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]75.7[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
 
While I don't necessarily agree with Phil Steele's Strength of Schedule analysis, I am using it to prove the basic point that the Yards per play analysis is coming from relatively similar positions. It wouldn't be wise to use yards per play averages vs game performance results without taking the opponents strength of schedule into account.

As you can see the SOS of their opponents was relatively similar if you take the average. Close enough to make the point.

It should also be noted that singular games have a lot of fluctuation in them as do single opponents. Teams go through ebbs and flows during a season so depending when you catch a team the results can be skewed vs average. In addition, within a single game a single large play can skew results. So the posted graph earlier is not without flaws or other considerations. But in general, it serves as a great tool to examine some teams, particularly anomalistic teams such as Tulsa.
 
clowncar said:
[TABLE="width: 701"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]Tulsa[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] off Yards/Play[/TD]
[TD]opp def avg[/TD]
[TD]variance[/TD]
[TD]% change[/TD]
[TD]def Yards/play[/TD]
[TD]opp off avg[/TD]
[TD]variance[/TD]
[TD]% change[/TD]
[TD]net difference to avg[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]7.19[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.54[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.65[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]30%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.86[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.09[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.77[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-15%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.88[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.74[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.11[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.63[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]10%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.74[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.83[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.09[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.72[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.63[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.79[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.84[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]38%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]9.09[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.8[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-2.29[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-34%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.45[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]5.18[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.48[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-5%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.79[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.16[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.63[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-10%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.93[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]5.26[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.61[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.35[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-6%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.25[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.48[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.77[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-17%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.12[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]5.38[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.38[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.31[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.67[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.36[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.36[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.59[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.51[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.08[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]20%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.33[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.15[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.18[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-19%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]4.99[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.32[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.33[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-6%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.21[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.29[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.08[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.25[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.64[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.54[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.1[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.96[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.12[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.84[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-20%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.74[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.61[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.79[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.82[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]14%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.86[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.26[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-19%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.44[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]5.01[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.65[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.64[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-11%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8.19[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.35[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.84[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-29%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-2.48[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.38[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.81[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.57[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]10%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.46[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.76[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-36%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.13[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.78[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.55[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.23[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]22%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.38[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.33[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-2.05[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-38%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.82[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]SJSU[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] off Yards/Play[/TD]
[TD]opp def avg[/TD]
[TD]variance[/TD]
[TD]% change[/TD]
[TD]def Yards/play[/TD]
[TD]opp off avg[/TD]
[TD]variance[/TD]
[TD]% change[/TD]
[TD]net difference to avg[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]5.47[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.71[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.24[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-4%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.65[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.4[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.75[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]12%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.51[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]3.67[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.44[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-2.77[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-43%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.17[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.12[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.05[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-21%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-3.82[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.99[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.71[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]12%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3.98[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.58[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]13%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.31[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]5.72[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.37[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.35[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.9[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.39[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.51[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-9%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.17[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.23[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.06[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.17[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.62[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.45[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]8%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.39[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2.51[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.66[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-2.15[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-46%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.08[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.67[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.41[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-7%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-2.56[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.47[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.11[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.36[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.44[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.83[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.61[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-10%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.25[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]4.2[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.9[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-14%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.31[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.02[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.71[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]12%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.01[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.37[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.73[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.64[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]11%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.45[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.05[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.69[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.97[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.55[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.42[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]26%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.59[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.85[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.74[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-36%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-0.32[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]6.41[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.86[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.55[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]32%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.2[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.05[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.15[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-19%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]3.92[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-1.38[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]-26%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.71[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.23[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.52[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]24%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.14[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
Click to expand...


:shake2:
 
i hate those high schools hehe.


looks like El Dorado is considered the best this year in the el paso area. Snuck by Eastlake.

Hanks gonna have a long year .. without me around the school, the team is worthless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G-Man
***G-Man's College Week 3 -- Sept 12-14***
Replies
6
Views
330
G-Man
G-Man
steponaduck
NCAA FOOTBALL WEEK 2- STEPONADUCK 17-10 YTD +6.75u
Replies
9
Views
366
steponaduck
steponaduck
P
Week 1
Replies
24
Views
962
PirateAlew
P
B
Kids Foots Week 6
Replies
3
Views
60
Bigtiger
B
bookieassassin
WEEK 5
Replies
43
Views
2K
PRIMETIMEE21
P
Back
Top