Let's talk Texas Tech for a bit

[RGV Pony]

I'm as optimistic as the next guy, I suppose...but I find it unsettling looking ahead to the Texas Tech game. Is anyone else leary about the various opinions that SMU is on the upswing this year because of xyz?

My reasoning is this: the last time TTech played at Ford, TTech won what, 24-14 or 23-14. Arguably, that was a much better Tech team than what we saw last year. That Tech team was the one that hung 70 on TCU and Nebraska, was it not? This time around, our defense has lost guys and we have a team fortunate to have held Tech in the thirties (most likely due to the gameclock changes). Anyone else concerned that the game won't be shortened like it was last year?

I really hope for two things: 1. An offense capable of sustaining drives. Whether they lead to points or not, we must have 2 to 3 long, sustained drives per half. 2. A defense with more lateral quickness. If we see Tech consistently turning the corner, it could be a long year.

Thoughts?

[AusTxPony]

I say we have to play these BCS games since as Stallion insistantly points out that the rest of our schedule with the exception of TCU (?) is against teams rated below 50 by Sagarin. Texas Tech usually provides a sellout and this is important to us. We just have to find a way to win these games or remain competitive at least, therefore we should keep them on the schedule. I would love to see Notre Dame on there as well as our neighborhood BCS schools. Win or Lose by 70, we need to turn out and cheer our boys. One game a season does not make. Go Mustangs, Beat Tech.

[EastStang]

I look at these games as a barometer. Until we can consistently play with the Big boys, our program is not back. A pat on the back moral victory here and a blow out there, don't cut it. Winning 50% of the time against these teams and staying close the other 50% is when we know that we have really turned the corner. And of course doing better than .500 in CUSA.

[BUS]

Yes, we have to control the ball for as long as we can just to keep them from scoring. I hope we can.
On D we better be able to get a little pressure and the BD's better play tight on 3rd. down.

Hell they better be able to play tight all season.

Be a fan and come watch the game and yell loud for your MUSTANGS.

[Stallion]

the game will not been lengthened significantly from the 2006 version as some reporters suggest. The reasons games used to last so long against passing teams like Tech was that the clock stopped after each first down. Tech often got 30-35 first downs meaning 30-35 timeouts per game. That rule is not going to back to the 2005 version. Can't believe more people haven't noticed this and yet every reporter comments how the clock rules are going back to the 2005 version. The changes in the clock rules are that the clock won't start until the kickoff has been received by the receiving team and the clock will not start immediately on a change of possession. Those rules will not significantly lengthen games since those events occur much less often than first downs. The greatest aspect of college football in my opinion used to be the strategy involved in last minute comebacks allowing a team to march down the field by throwing past the first down marker. Think back in history-and 90% of the games involved that strategy. Now we are still going to be treated to the ridiculously boring NFL rules where a team has to run up to the line of scrimmage and throw the ball at the centers feet just to stop the clock. How exciting!!!!! The pre-2006 College rules made for a far superior product than the NFL game and resulted in the best opportunity for last minute comebacks.

[EastStang]

Right on, Stallion. I guess the networks wanted more predictability in the amount of time allotted to a particular broadcast. But it really did sacrifice some of the really important differences between college football and pro-football.

[mrydel]

Wow. I did not realize they did not reverse the first down clock stoppage. I have always thought that was a rule that should also be in the NFL because it provides a better chance for comeback and does not take the time that a full time out does.

Another problem along with the excitment of foot passing is the official's "call" on whether or not a player reaches out of bounds before the play is blown dead. Too many times they let the clock roll when a player actually gets OB or visa versa. (Of course the ruling is biased depending on what my team needs.)

[RGV Pony]

the NCAA should take a cue from the NBA and allow for first down clock stoppage with under two minutes left

[Sideline]

Very pointless, but nothing beats me down more than watching an NFL game come back from a TV break after a score, have a kickoff and return, and go right back to commercial.

The college game should at least look into 30 second or shortened timeouts when teams are calling them for clock stoppage only. I'm not sure if it was ever a rule change or considered, but it never seemed to make sense.

As far as the Tech game, we can hope they aren't accustomed to playing 32 feet below the ground at the hottest point of the day. I would hope we schedule camp practice for the same time the game will be played. I'm not accusing our braintrust of not preparing for this, but I dont know as much as they've forgotten.

[Dirty Bird]

The last two road games Texas Tech played where they had to stare into the sun, on a hot afternoon, were A&M and TCU in 2006.
A win and a loss, but games that could've gone either way, nonetheless.
Barring an anomaly weather-wise, it'll be a broiler come Labor Day, Tech will have to stare into the sun, and maybe that will bridge the gulf in talent a bit.
Maybe?

[CalallenStang]

The last two road games Texas Tech played where they had to stare into the sun, on a hot afternoon, were A&M and TCU in 2006.
A win and a loss, but games that could've gone either way, nonetheless.
Barring an anomaly weather-wise, it'll be a broiler come Labor Day, Tech will have to stare into the sun, and maybe that will bridge the gulf in talent a bit.
Maybe?

They are deeper than us. Typical 3:30 PM Labor Day weather (i.e. 110 degrees) works in their favor, not ours.

[perunapower]

I'm as optimistic as the next guy, I suppose...but I find it unsettling looking ahead to the Texas Tech game. Is anyone else leary about the various opinions that SMU is on the upswing this year because of xyz?

My reasoning is this: the last time TTech played at Ford, TTech won what, 24-14 or 23-14. Arguably, that was a much better Tech team than what we saw last year. That Tech team was the one that hung 70 on TCU and Nebraska, was it not? This time around, our defense has lost guys and we have a team fortunate to have held Tech in the thirties (most likely due to the gameclock changes). Anyone else concerned that the game won't be shortened like it was last year?

I really hope for two things: 1. An offense capable of sustaining drives. Whether they lead to points or not, we must have 2 to 3 long, sustained drives per half. 2. A defense with more lateral quickness. If we see Tech consistently turning the corner, it could be a long year.

Thoughts?

Well, I would hope that PB will open up the playbook and play to win, not to minimize defeat. That will allow us an offense capable of sustaining drives. We have a healthy Martin, capable RBs behind him, numerous TEs and WRs that are capable of big plays. The key thing that needs to happen for our offense to have success is for the offensive line to give Willis some time to carry out or make plays.

As far as the defense goes, I think we all are anxious to see what they are capable of doing. Three of the inside four have playing time, with Muse, Berry, and Handy. All three of them have started key games. One question mark left between Parham, Thomas, Leonard, DeGroat, and Dollens for the fourth guy on the line. The coaches seem really upbeat about DBs with Smart, Dizer, Johnson, and Griffin. The LBs are all returning players with experience with McCray, Carrington, and Hawkins. The secondary should be much more consistent as opposed to last year now that some of these guys have some experience under their belts. True there are some question marks on the defensive side of the ball, but it's not like we are starting over from scratch.

Special teams shouldn't be a big concern. Especially since kickoffs have been moved back to the 30 for more returns. We will have the ability to keep them deep in their own zone and we will have the opportunity to utilize our quick deep return guys.

Personally, I feel like this is the best opportunity we've had to beat Tech in a long time. The guys have to be confident in themselves, PB has to open the playbook, and we have to control time of possession. Those three things and maybe a lucky bounce or two should help us pull a W out of the game.

[OC Mustang]

I am willing to predict something, albeit a bit qualified. If Smart plays DE at all the Tech game, he will get to Tech's QB at least once. Mark it down.

[westexSMU]

[quote="BUS"]Yes, we have to control the ball for as long as we can just to keep them from scoring. [/quote].................I generally disagree with this statement because Tech will probably get their points regardless unless PB can pull off a Patterson(tcu coach) type defensive shutdown of Tech. Since SMU is breaking in a new defensive front, that is not likely. Knowone has really stopped TECH the last several years except tcu last year..........If our gameplan is ball control, we might slow them down some but in the end they will most likely make several big plays and get the points......What SMU needs on offense is for Coach Burns to pullout all the stops and plan on alot of big plays and fast strike offense trying to score alot of points like UTEP did on them last year. That UTEP-TEXAS TECH game last year ended in a 35-35 tie and sure Tech won in overtime but at least UTEP put themselves in a position to win by scoring big.....Unless SMU gets alot of +turnovers, the only way I see to win is to try to score quickly and often.

[PonyKai]

I can tell you why personally (perhaps being a bit too sunshiney) I like our chances taking on Tech. If you look at last year, we had an untested quarterback who could not manage the team, an inefficient running game, team tackling that was absolutely atrocious, and we were weaker physically and mentally.

Now coming into this September we have a very good quarterback with an entire year's experience under his belt, we bring OUR deepest roster to the game in many years, we play at them at our stadium (we were 5-1 at home last year, even if there will be plenty of TT fans), we have been running more full contact/tackling drills over the spring and anticipated over the summer, and the new strength program and coach has made a marked difference. The greatest difference between the old and new strength regime is in the summer workouts. Viloria has implemented a much more rigorous and strenuous summer workout than the team has been through in a long time.

If you put this together with the fact that Tech lost 4 of its 5 starting offensive linemen, as well as losing their top recieiving threats, then week one is the best time to take a shot at them. So you have a deeper, stronger team with a proven (skilled) quarterback and the anticipation of a better prepared running game/technically sound defense taking on an average BCS team that had to replace key parts to their team in our stadium on game one, and I like our chances. Call me crazy.