SMU 86 wrote:Excuse me Tulsa barely beat Fresno St but we soundly defeated Tulsa. SMU should take Fresno St to the woodshed.
Tulsa had nothing to play for against us.
Why do people say Tulsa had nothing to play for? They were just outside the top 25 going into the game, they were playing to get ranked, if not this week then to be ranked by the end of the season if they won out.
On the other hand, I certainly do not agree that we soundly beat Tulsa.
What he said. I'm not sure which game the rest of you were watching, but soundly would not be the adjective I would use to describe our failing to lose vs. Tulsa.
ALEX LIFESON wrote:You guys that think Fresno St. will be easy are nuts.... you need to look at their schedule. If we don't play well, it could get ugly.
We can beat them, just need their staff to get raided and a bunch of their starters to get suspended.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
ALEX LIFESON wrote:You guys that think Fresno St. will be easy are nuts.... you need to look at their schedule. If we don't play well, it could get ugly.
We can beat them, just need their staff to get raided and a bunch of their starters to get suspended.
ALEX LIFESON wrote:You guys that think Fresno St. will be easy are nuts.... you need to look at their schedule. If we don't play well, it could get ugly.
We can beat them, just need their staff to get raided and a bunch of their starters to get suspended.
Yup, 2 out of three ain't bad, eh?
I'll take whatever we can get.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
MagnificentGelding wrote: What he said. I'm not sure which game the rest of you were watching, but soundly would not be the adjective I would use to describe our failing to lose vs. Tulsa.
Getting bailed out by the D is still winning......
ALEX LIFESON wrote:You guys that think Fresno St. will be easy are nuts.... you need to look at their schedule. If we don't play well, it could get ugly.
We can beat them, just need their staff to get raided and a bunch of their starters to get suspended.
You all are so right - that Nevada team that we thumped in the last Hawaii Bowl was no good. It's not like their QB that started that game is now the starting QB of the Super Bowl front runner San Francisco 49ers.
But you all know better. That team was a bunch of scrubs and we won due to a shoplifting incedent.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/w ... xid=cnnbin the Hawaii bowl is rated 33rd out of 35 total bowk rakings. 4 years later we are going to the same bowl. I know it is better than bottom 10 where we use to be but I had hoped for more at this point in time.
bubba pony wrote:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/12/04/bowl-rankings/index.html?xid=cnnbin the Hawaii bowl is rated 33rd out of 35 total bowk rakings. 4 years later we are going to the same bowl. I know it is better than bottom 10 where we use to be but I had hoped for more at this point in time.
Who knew June would suck at coaching offense and have a weird fixation on the Hawaii Bowl?
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
I just realized that its a good thing June is the coach and not me. Being from NM I would probably need to say "well the New Mexico bowl was our goal all along" and everyone would be talking about players facebook posts that said "red or green? NM bound baby!"
bubba pony wrote:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/12/04/bowl-rankings/index.html?xid=cnnbin the Hawaii bowl is rated 33rd out of 35 total bowk rakings. 4 years later we are going to the same bowl. I know it is better than bottom 10 where we use to be but I had hoped for more at this point in time.
Closest we have been to top twenty five in a while.
All those who believe in psycho kinesis, raise my hand