Is It All Down Hill From Here...

[Green Crazy]

Not that it's going to be a cake walk, but that had to be the toughest game we will play all year, right? I think it's possibly the best offense well see with their size and speed (although i don't think they had their best game), it's the best defense we'll see and definitely the roughest environment we'll be in. So, does it only get better from here? No 40+ point, 500 yard games for the opponents this year? Is this a 7-8 win year?

[MeanGreenEagle]

I think that is the best defense we will see. But K-State has an all american caliber running back and we all know what Troy's O is capable of, so we aren't done giving up big plays on defense yet.

[ColoradoEagle]

Let's not kid ourselves; UCLA is not a good football team. They had 35 yards of rushing and 2 picks. Their defense from last year was absolutely gutted. I agree that Kansas State won't be a pushover, but UCLA isn't a good measuring stick. They'd finish towards the middle, at best, in the Sun Belt.

Edited September 5, 2010 by ColoradoEagle

[Varsity]

Do you mean downhill like easy or downhill like decline?

Edited September 5, 2010 by Varsity

[GreenStreet]

I hope Clemson goes undefeated just so we can quiet the doubters. Clemson is not a Ball State team from last year who lost their coach and starting QB.

[LoveMG]

Let's not kid ourselves; UCLA is not a good football team. They had 35 yards of rushing and 2 picks. Their defense from last year was absolutely gutted. I agree that Kansas State won't be a pushover, but UCLA isn't a good measuring stick. They'd finish towards the middle, at best, in the Sun Belt.

sure. you have way too much faith in the sunbelt.

[ColoradoEagle]

sure. you have way too much faith in the sunbelt.

You think too highly of the PAC 10. Once you get past the first 2-3 teams, they're by far the worst conference in the BCS. Washington State @ Western Kentucky would be a nail-biter, and I don't expect UCLA to finish much higher.

Edited September 5, 2010 by ColoradoEagle

[ntmeangreen11]

Let's not kid ourselves; UCLA is not a good football team. They had 35 yards of rushing and 2 picks. Their defense from last year was absolutely gutted. I agree that Kansas State won't be a pushover, but UCLA isn't a good measuring stick. They'd finish towards the middle, at best, in the Sun Belt.

[CMJ]

You think too highly of the PAC 10. Once you get past the first 2-3 teams, they're by far the worst conference in the BCS. Washington State @ Western Kentucky would be a nail-biter, and I don't expect UCLA to finish much higher.

WSU is terrible, but otherwise I disagree entirely with that.

[Green Mean]

After USC, I don't think the PAC 10 has a definitive power. Oregon gets too much hype without having ever done much of anything. ASU can be really good or they can be really mediocre. USC is the giant and Cal is probably the second school that is in that upper tier but right below USC. Other than that I would say it is a mediocre conference from a the BCS perspective.

[ColoradoEagle]

Ok, for a second pretend that UCLA isn't a football powerhouse (they're not). Also pretend that they've not been a top-tier football program since the 80's (they haven't). And then think about their only quality win last year coming against a 7-5 Tennessee team. And then top it all off with them losing all but 1 person on their defensive front line to graduation after that one quality win season last year.

You guys get too caught up in names sometimes. UCLA is at the absolute bottom right now in the PAC 10. They'd be picked last, except Washington State makes Baylor look like Alabama.

Edited September 6, 2010 by ColoradoEagle

[CMJ]

Ok, for a second pretend that UCLA isn't a football powerhouse (they're not). Also pretend that they've not been a top-tier football program since the 80's (they haven't). And then think about their only quality win last year coming against a 7-5 Tennessee team. And then top it all off with them losing all but 1 person on their defensive front line to graduation after that one quality win season last year.

You guys get too caught up in names sometimes. UCLA is at the absolute bottom right now in the PAC 10. They'd be picked last, except Washington State makes Baylor look like Alabama.

They aren't a powerhouse, but they are the Pac-10 school with the 3rd most Rose Bowl appearances/wins(including two in the 1990's, so I'd say they were top tier then). USC is the historical power and Washington is the school with the 2nd most football tradition. After that it is UCLA and/or Stanford.

Because of that I would say UCLA is probably a top 30 program all-time. A power? No. More than respectable? Yes.

[Got5onIt]

No game will be easy this year.

[ColoradoEagle]

They aren't a powerhouse, but they are the Pac-10 school with the 3rd most Rose Bowl appearances/wins(including two in the 1990's, so I'd say they were top tier then). USC is the historical power and Washington is the school with the 2nd most football tradition. After that it is UCLA and/or Stanford.

Because of that I would say UCLA is probably a top 30 program all-time. A power? No. More than respectable? Yes.

I'm not talking about any school's legacy here, just where the PAC 10 and UCLA in particular are now. Looking at their schedule, I would be surprised if they're better than 3-9. My prediction is 2-10.

[Rudy]

You think too highly of the PAC 10. Once you get past the first 2-3 teams, they're by far the worst conference in the BCS. Washington State @ Western Kentucky would be a nail-biter, and I don't expect UCLA to finish much higher.

I love your optimism, but I didn't see TU about to jump the Big 12-2 for the Sunbelt.

[ColoradoEagle]

So you're saying that UCLA and UT-Austin are comparable programs right now?

[NT91]

We need to open the year with SFA TX ST ACU East Texas like all the other big boys do each year.

Edited September 6, 2010 by NT91

[PlummMeanGreen]

We need to open the year with SFA TX ST ACU East Texas like all the other big boys do each year.

NT91, many of us would have agreed with you at one time--but many of us would probably not agree at this stage of development of our football program.

Why (or for example)? ? ? Let's say TAMU brings in an SFASU (like they did this last weekend) and gets beat by the Lumberjacks? Well, the Ag' faithul would have a royal caniption fit but they would re-group for their conference season and they would still keep 70,000 or so of their fans continue coming through the turnstiles of Kyle Field.

OK now SFU versus UNT? Lets say the Mean Green got beat in a home season opener against SFASU (or similar). Cost Factor? UNT would lose way too many of our 25,000 (give or take) crowd we see at home season openers and we would lose them for way too much of the season--especially if the losing continued. Game Day walk-up tickets sales among the nominal local fans would go south because of the way our fans have looked at such losses in the past.

History will teach us much at North Texas if we will go back to examine certain cause & effects for different scenarios when it involves fan support; that is, what keeps our fans or what loses our fans. Just my 02.

GMG!

Edited September 6, 2010 by PlummMeanGreen

[Quoner]

You think too highly of the PAC 10. Once you get past the first 2-3 teams, they're by far the worst conference in the BCS. Washington State @ Western Kentucky would be a nail-biter, and I don't expect UCLA to finish much higher.

So....TCU sucks then?

[Green P1]

bully

[MeanGreenWithEnvy]

You think too highly of the PAC 10. Once you get past the first 2-3 teams, they're by far the worst conference in the BCS. Washington State @ Western Kentucky would be a nail-biter, and I don't expect UCLA to finish much higher.

Dude. Really?

Out of the 10 teams in the PAC-10, six of them would take anyone in the Sun Belt, home or away. In most recent years and especially this year any Sun Belt team would be dogs to Arizona, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford, or USC. Five of those six teams are top 25 teams as of this week. Washington State is pretty bad, but they're not Western Kentucky bad. This year Arizona State would beat nearly anyone in the Sun Belt.

I don't get how people think the PAC-10 is some slack conference. This year, the Big 12 is more slack than the PAC-10.

[Green Mean]

Let's not kid ourselves; UCLA is not a good football team. They had 35 yards of rushing and 2 picks. Their defense from last year was absolutely gutted. I agree that Kansas State won't be a pushover, but UCLA isn't a good measuring stick. They'd finish towards the middle, at best, in the Sun Belt.

I'm not saying UCLA is a great team but they convincingly beat a top 25 caliber Houston team and trashed a number 7(albeit overall overrated) Texas team in Austin. They would not finish middle of the SBC...they would be the best team in the SBC. It's debatable if the PAC 10 is the worst BCS conference. You can make a case for the Big East and maybe even the ACC.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Green Mean