Jump to content

Roy Lang III: La Tech gets busted


Harry

Recommended Posts

Merry Christmas, Quinton Patton. And Colby Cameron. And Ryan Allen. Even though you proved you were some of the best in the country at your positions, you will be idle for the next five weeks while roughly 7,000 other college football players complete their 2012 seasons — some their careers — in a bowl game.

The aforementioned Louisiana Tech Bulldogs and their teammates were robbed of one final opportunity to gather together and proudly wear red and blue — a priceless gift for a college athlete no matter their future. The Bulldogs were jilted by an administration that, this week, may have lost a game of tic-tac-toe if given the first three moves.

The combination of arrogance, poor judgment and a dose of bad luck left the 9-3 Bulldogs, the nation’s No. 1 offense, home for the holidays. Despite one of the best seasons in school history, Tech is one of two of the 72 bowl-eligible teams that won’t play again.

Three weeks ago, Louisiana Tech controlled its BCS destiny but lost its final two games. This week, Tech again controlled its destiny but gambled with it. All the wonderful attention the Bulldogs garnered over 12 games was soured by an unthinkable mistake.

Ironically, a BCS buster, Northern Illinois, was Louisiana Tech’s undoing.

The Huskies’ inclusion in the Orange Bowl set off a chain of events that caught the Bulldogs with their pants down.

Read more: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20121203/SPORTS0405/121203002/Roy-Lang-III-Tech-gets-busted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the way the article depicts it is the way it really happened, then this points to another reason why the bowl system is completely broken.

A playoff system would put every school in its appropriate matchup. If LaTech had a legitimate shot at playing in a better bowl, why would they cut off the chance by committing to a lesser bowl before they found out if they made it or not? LaTech is providing the obvious answer to that question right now. But teams shouldn't be forced to make those kind of decisions, and bowls shouldn't have the power to put teams in those positions.

Then again, LaTech may have just said no because they didn't want to play ULM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merry Christmas, Quinton Patton. And Colby Cameron. And Ryan Allen. Even though you proved you were some of the best in the country at your positions, you will be idle for the next five weeks while roughly 7,000 other college football players complete their 2012 seasons — some their careers — in a bowl game.

The aforementioned Louisiana Tech Bulldogs and their teammates were robbed of one final opportunity to gather together and proudly wear red and blue — a priceless gift for a college athlete no matter their future. The Bulldogs were jilted by an administration that, this week, may have lost a game of tic-tac-toe if given the first three moves.

The combination of arrogance, poor judgment and a dose of bad luck left the 9-3 Bulldogs, the nation’s No. 1 offense, home for the holidays. Despite one of the best seasons in school history, Tech is one of two of the 72 bowl-eligible teams that won’t play again.

Three weeks ago, Louisiana Tech controlled its BCS destiny but lost its final two games. This week, Tech again controlled its destiny but gambled with it. All the wonderful attention the Bulldogs garnered over 12 games was soured by an unthinkable mistake.

Ironically, a BCS buster, Northern Illinois, was Louisiana Tech’s undoing.

The Huskies’ inclusion in the Orange Bowl set off a chain of events that caught the Bulldogs with their pants down.

Read more: http://www.shrevepor...ech-gets-busted

Glad to see that LaTech has 31 seniors this year - and UNT has 6!

That should help even the field next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, for one, think it's hilarious! Yes, it's sad for the players, but....

This van de Velde, guy...what a card! Thought the Independence Bowl should just wait on Louisiana Tech to sort through imaginary suitors. What a dope!

As if one 9-3 season in the crappy WAC gives you the street cred to tell a bowl game to hold the door for you. Stupid...but, funny!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the roster, UNT has 15. Are you thinking of scholarship players?

But come to think of it there were about 15 seniors introduced at the last home game - so obviously some were scholarship players and some were walk-ons.

Regardless, 15 is about half of 31, so that should help a little bit vs. LaTech next year........we do need every advantage we can get.

GMG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The roster on the athletics' website lists 15 seniors and 1 RS senior

Will Atterberry: scholarship.

Cory Brown: walk on

Jeremy Brown: scholarship

Raymond Burks: walk on

Tevinn Cantly: scholarship

Ivan Delgado: scholarship

John Dodson: walk on

Coleman Feeley: scholarship

Aaron Fortenberry: scholarship

Kevin Maduka: walk on

K.C. Obi: scholarship

Jeremy Phillips: scholarship

Andrew Power: scholarship

Daniel Prior: redshirted this year; scholarship

Nicolas Summerfield: scholarship

Christopher Bynes: scholarship

This is the list of seniors on the roster and who I believe was on scholarship and who wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, for one, think it's hilarious! Yes, it's sad for the players, but....

This van de Velde, guy...what a card! Thought the Independence Bowl should just wait on Louisiana Tech to sort through imaginary suitors. What a dope!

As if one 9-3 season in the crappy WAC gives you the street cred to tell a bowl game to hold the door for you. Stupid...but, funny!

I have a real good feeling that if this were to have somehow happened to North Texas, this board would have been sympathetic and understood the tough position that RV was in...

:whistling1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the way the article depicts it is the way it really happened, then this points to another reason why the bowl system is completely broken.

A playoff system would put every school in its appropriate matchup. If LaTech had a legitimate shot at playing in a better bowl, why would they cut off the chance by committing to a lesser bowl before they found out if they made it or not? LaTech is providing the obvious answer to that question right now. But teams shouldn't be forced to make those kind of decisions, and bowls shouldn't have the power to put teams in those positions.

Then again, LaTech may have just said no because they didn't want to play ULM.

If there was a playoff system, la tech wouldn't have even been thought about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the number 6 that is referenced comes from HS recruits that are still on the roster. Mac referenced 13 scholarship seniors that he would be losing and I thought one of the press conferences indicated 17 total, but going from memory on the total number.

Thanks Curve for the clarification.

My original premise still seems valid to me - we are losing far fewer seniors, regardless of origin or scholarship, than LaTech.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These bowls have millions invested and can't wait around for someone to see if they get a better offer. LaTech shot themselves in the foot by losing to Utah State and San Jose State. It's impossible to expect a major bowl with three losses. It was an expensive excuse to avoid playing ULM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.