2019 FB Schedule

The main discussion board for everything Tulane athletics related.
Bicoastalwave
Surge
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:24 am
Status: Offline

Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:29 pm

pansdad wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:17 pm
I absolutely HATE this picking on each other; back and forth. Do you guys get any satisfaction from this?
Agree. Not on topic. And lets just thank the heavens we arent in Conf USA and Rice isn’t our athletic peer :lol:


winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 13992
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:40 pm

Wave QB wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:10 pm
winwave wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:46 am
We continue to disagree. That 7-6 didn't give any great inspiration based off of the schedule it was done against and especially with the loss to ULL in the Bowl game. I have been following the program for six decades and know a multitude of season ticket holdrs. No one was buying season tickets because of what happened in 2013. It was all about the novelty of the new stadium.

In your second paragraph you finally admit it was a weak schedule. Before this you were saying it was tough with those teams on it winning 6-10 games. Just because I pointed that out doesn't mean I discredited the players on that team. I appreciate their efforts but the schedule was what it was and there's nothing wrong with being honest about it. Going 10-2 against it wouldn't have moved the needle much more. It was just that bad of a schedule.
Now your Wavedat leaf is starting to turn over. Don’t put words in my post. I never called that schedule tough. I pointed out the “fact” that the schedule wasn’t full of tomato cans as you are making it out to be. It’s was far from great, but it was what we needed to bring our program to a bowl season before opening up the new stadium. Not sure if you know every single alumni, but many who I know (and I have decades of fans in my pocket as well), showed up in support of the stadium and hopes of another winning season. Please don’t take away from what those kids did just because you disliked the schedule.
It's clear you have a personal connection to that team. Sorry you're offended but the scheduling was what it was. It was a soft schedule. It's not what we need going forward. It's as simple as that.
Let's Roll !
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 13992
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:48 pm

Aberzombie1892 wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:07 pm
Wave QB wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:10 pm
winwave wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:46 am
We continue to disagree. That 7-6 didn't give any great inspiration based off of the schedule it was done against and especially with the loss to ULL in the Bowl game. I have been following the program for six decades and know a multitude of season ticket holdrs. No one was buying season tickets because of what happened in 2013. It was all about the novelty of the new stadium.

In your second paragraph you finally admit it was a weak schedule. Before this you were saying it was tough with those teams on it winning 6-10 games. Just because I pointed that out doesn't mean I discredited the players on that team. I appreciate their efforts but the schedule was what it was and there's nothing wrong with being honest about it. Going 10-2 against it wouldn't have moved the needle much more. It was just that bad of a schedule.
Now your Wavedat leaf is starting to turn over. Don’t put words in my post. I never called that schedule tough. I pointed out the “fact” that the schedule wasn’t full of tomato cans as you are making it out to be. It’s was far from great, but it was what we needed to bring our program to a bowl season before opening up the new stadium. Not sure if you know every single alumni, but many who I know (and I have decades of fans in my pocket as well), showed up in support of the stadium and hopes of another winning season. Please don’t take away from what those kids did just because you disliked the schedule.
I agree with this.

1. The 2013 schedule was not nearly as weak as some on this site make it out to be (a little tougher than the 1998 schedule) and the 2013 team almost beat a ULL team that, thanks in significant part to its QB, was at an entirely different competitive level than the 2018 ULL team. It seems as though some fans fixate on the brands Tulane played instead of how good those teams were.
2. Many casual fans I’m aware of were excited about and had high hopes for the 2014 season given how Tulane performed in the 2013 season, and, if Tanner Lee wasn’t “Tanner Lee”, Tulane could have potentially won the season opener. For the sake of clarification, the 2014 team was still Tulane’s second best team since 2005.
The '98 schedule wasn't tough but it was better than that 2013 schedule. Not even close.

No one had high hopes for 2014 based on 2013. They were intrigued by the novelty of the new stadium.
Let's Roll !
Aberzombie1892
Swell
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline

Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:59 pm

winwave wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:48 pm
Aberzombie1892 wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:07 pm
Wave QB wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:10 pm
winwave wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:46 am
We continue to disagree. That 7-6 didn't give any great inspiration based off of the schedule it was done against and especially with the loss to ULL in the Bowl game. I have been following the program for six decades and know a multitude of season ticket holdrs. No one was buying season tickets because of what happened in 2013. It was all about the novelty of the new stadium.

In your second paragraph you finally admit it was a weak schedule. Before this you were saying it was tough with those teams on it winning 6-10 games. Just because I pointed that out doesn't mean I discredited the players on that team. I appreciate their efforts but the schedule was what it was and there's nothing wrong with being honest about it. Going 10-2 against it wouldn't have moved the needle much more. It was just that bad of a schedule.
Now your Wavedat leaf is starting to turn over. Don’t put words in my post. I never called that schedule tough. I pointed out the “fact” that the schedule wasn’t full of tomato cans as you are making it out to be. It’s was far from great, but it was what we needed to bring our program to a bowl season before opening up the new stadium. Not sure if you know every single alumni, but many who I know (and I have decades of fans in my pocket as well), showed up in support of the stadium and hopes of another winning season. Please don’t take away from what those kids did just because you disliked the schedule.
I agree with this.

1. The 2013 schedule was not nearly as weak as some on this site make it out to be (a little tougher than the 1998 schedule) and the 2013 team almost beat a ULL team that, thanks in significant part to its QB, was at an entirely different competitive level than the 2018 ULL team. It seems as though some fans fixate on the brands Tulane played instead of how good those teams were.
2. Many casual fans I’m aware of were excited about and had high hopes for the 2014 season given how Tulane performed in the 2013 season, and, if Tanner Lee wasn’t “Tanner Lee”, Tulane could have potentially won the season opener. For the sake of clarification, the 2014 team was still Tulane’s second best team since 2005.
The '98 schedule wasn't tough but it was better than that 2013 schedule. Not even close.

No one had high hopes for 2014 based on 2013. They were intrigued by the novelty of the new stadium.
It was tougher based on what, quantitatively?
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 13992
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:01 am

It was a tougher CUSA back then. The schedule wasn't full of the weak sisters like FAU, UNT, USA and UTSA.
Let's Roll !
Wave QB
Swell
Posts: 1740
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:09 am
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:24 am

winwave wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:40 pm
Wave QB wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:10 pm
winwave wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:46 am
We continue to disagree. That 7-6 didn't give any great inspiration based off of the schedule it was done against and especially with the loss to ULL in the Bowl game. I have been following the program for six decades and know a multitude of season ticket holdrs. No one was buying season tickets because of what happened in 2013. It was all about the novelty of the new stadium.

In your second paragraph you finally admit it was a weak schedule. Before this you were saying it was tough with those teams on it winning 6-10 games. Just because I pointed that out doesn't mean I discredited the players on that team. I appreciate their efforts but the schedule was what it was and there's nothing wrong with being honest about it. Going 10-2 against it wouldn't have moved the needle much more. It was just that bad of a schedule.
Now your Wavedat leaf is starting to turn over. Don’t put words in my post. I never called that schedule tough. I pointed out the “fact” that the schedule wasn’t full of tomato cans as you are making it out to be. It’s was far from great, but it was what we needed to bring our program to a bowl season before opening up the new stadium. Not sure if you know every single alumni, but many who I know (and I have decades of fans in my pocket as well), showed up in support of the stadium and hopes of another winning season. Please don’t take away from what those kids did just because you disliked the schedule.
It's clear you have a personal connection to that team. Sorry you're offended but the scheduling was what it was. It was a soft schedule. It's not what we need going forward. It's as simple as that.
You aren’t offended me, you are offending kids who brought us a winning season that year. Every schedule that puts our program in the best position to have a breakout season and bowl appearance after consecutive ugly seasons is considered a smart schedule.
Bicoastalwave
Surge
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:24 am
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:35 am

Weird i didnt think this topic was “which schedule was harder and whose d**k smaller 1998 vs 2013/2014”
Aberzombie1892
Swell
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:53 am

Bicoastalwave wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:35 am
Weird i didnt think this topic was “which schedule was harder and whose d**k smaller 1998 vs 2013/2014”
Well, the topics generally end up at a point where someone says (paraphrasing), “The 2013 schedule was soooo easy, and Tulane clearly underperformed”. Then I say, “Sure, but’s let’s not pretend like the 1998 schedule was any better (which it wasn’t)”, yet, somehow, that leads to an unnecessary debate since it’s fairly easy to show that that was the case.

Highlights from the 1998 schedule:
1. Zero P5s.
2. Zero of Tulane’s away opponents won more than 5 games (only one won 5 - Rutgers).
3. Only 4 of Tulane’s opponents won 6 or more games (Louisville, USM, LaTech and bowl opponent BYU - only BYU won more than 7).
4. Tulane’s regular season OOC opponents were Navy (3-8), ULL (2-9), Rugers (5-6), Army (3-8), and LaTech (6-6). For perspective, 2 of Rutgers’ 5 wins were Army and Navy.
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 13992
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:45 am

Wave QB wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:24 am
winwave wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:40 pm
Wave QB wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:10 pm
winwave wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:46 am
We continue to disagree. That 7-6 didn't give any great inspiration based off of the schedule it was done against and especially with the loss to ULL in the Bowl game. I have been following the program for six decades and know a multitude of season ticket holdrs. No one was buying season tickets because of what happened in 2013. It was all about the novelty of the new stadium.

In your second paragraph you finally admit it was a weak schedule. Before this you were saying it was tough with those teams on it winning 6-10 games. Just because I pointed that out doesn't mean I discredited the players on that team. I appreciate their efforts but the schedule was what it was and there's nothing wrong with being honest about it. Going 10-2 against it wouldn't have moved the needle much more. It was just that bad of a schedule.
Now your Wavedat leaf is starting to turn over. Don’t put words in my post. I never called that schedule tough. I pointed out the “fact” that the schedule wasn’t full of tomato cans as you are making it out to be. It’s was far from great, but it was what we needed to bring our program to a bowl season before opening up the new stadium. Not sure if you know every single alumni, but many who I know (and I have decades of fans in my pocket as well), showed up in support of the stadium and hopes of another winning season. Please don’t take away from what those kids did just because you disliked the schedule.
It's clear you have a personal connection to that team. Sorry you're offended but the scheduling was what it was. It was a soft schedule. It's not what we need going forward. It's as simple as that.
You aren’t offended me, you are offending kids who brought us a winning season that year. Every schedule that puts our program in the best position to have a breakout season and bowl appearance after consecutive ugly seasons is considered a smart schedule.
Not offending them. Just saying what you said there- the schedule was manufactured to produce a winning season. That's not what people want every year. They see it for what it is.
Let's Roll !
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 13992
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:49 am

Aberzombie1892 wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:53 am
Bicoastalwave wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:35 am
Weird i didnt think this topic was “which schedule was harder and whose d**k smaller 1998 vs 2013/2014”
Well, the topics generally end up at a point where someone says (paraphrasing), “The 2013 schedule was soooo easy, and Tulane clearly underperformed”. Then I say, “Sure, but’s let’s not pretend like the 1998 schedule was any better (which it wasn’t)”, yet, somehow, that leads to an unnecessary debate since it’s fairly easy to show that that was the case.

Highlights from the 1998 schedule:
1. Zero P5s.
2. Zero of Tulane’s away opponents won more than 5 games (only one won 5 - Rutgers).
3. Only 4 of Tulane’s opponents won 6 or more games (Louisville, USM, LaTech and bowl opponent BYU - only BYU won more than 7).
4. Tulane’s regular season OOC opponents were Navy (3-8), ULL (2-9), Rugers (5-6), Army (3-8), and LaTech (6-6). For perspective, 2 of Rutgers’ 5 wins were Army and Navy.
The '98 schedule wasn't manufactured to just produce a winning season. When you talk about records teams finished with you have to look at who they played versus who teams from '13 played. You can use whatever metric you want but the "98 schedule wasn't anywhere near as weak as the '13 schedule.
Let's Roll !
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 7489
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:10 am

For what it's worth: In 1998 there were 6 Power Conferences, and Rutgers was a member of one of them. The Big East had 2 teams ranked in the top 20 preseason and finished with 3.
" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
Wave QB
Swell
Posts: 1740
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:09 am
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:24 am

winwave wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:45 am
Wave QB wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:24 am
winwave wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:40 pm
Wave QB wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:10 pm
winwave wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:46 am
We continue to disagree. That 7-6 didn't give any great inspiration based off of the schedule it was done against and especially with the loss to ULL in the Bowl game. I have been following the program for six decades and know a multitude of season ticket holdrs. No one was buying season tickets because of what happened in 2013. It was all about the novelty of the new stadium.

In your second paragraph you finally admit it was a weak schedule. Before this you were saying it was tough with those teams on it winning 6-10 games. Just because I pointed that out doesn't mean I discredited the players on that team. I appreciate their efforts but the schedule was what it was and there's nothing wrong with being honest about it. Going 10-2 against it wouldn't have moved the needle much more. It was just that bad of a schedule.
Now your Wavedat leaf is starting to turn over. Don’t put words in my post. I never called that schedule tough. I pointed out the “fact” that the schedule wasn’t full of tomato cans as you are making it out to be. It’s was far from great, but it was what we needed to bring our program to a bowl season before opening up the new stadium. Not sure if you know every single alumni, but many who I know (and I have decades of fans in my pocket as well), showed up in support of the stadium and hopes of another winning season. Please don’t take away from what those kids did just because you disliked the schedule.
It's clear you have a personal connection to that team. Sorry you're offended but the scheduling was what it was. It was a soft schedule. It's not what we need going forward. It's as simple as that.
You aren’t offended me, you are offending kids who brought us a winning season that year. Every schedule that puts our program in the best position to have a breakout season and bowl appearance after consecutive ugly seasons is considered a smart schedule.
Not offending them. Just saying what you said there- the schedule was manufactured to produce a winning season. That's not what people want every year. They see it for what it is.

We have seen it for what it is too many years Winwave. If you haven’t noticed, we aren’t considered a winning program. At this point, we are going back and forth over over the same debate. However, I would like to get your opinion on something.

Which schedule would you prefer at this point in Tulane football.

Schedule A
Northwestern State
at South Alabama
ULM
at Kansas

Schedule B
Duke
at Oklahoma
Kentucky
at Nebraska.


Schedule C
LSU (Superdome)
at Michigan
TCU
at Stanford


Schedule D
La Tech
at UNLV
UTSA
at Clemson
tufinal4
Low Tide
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:21 am
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:16 am

To me the huge difference is how thoroughly Tulane won those games in 1998 and went undefeated, vs squeaking by and going 7-6 in 2013. There is no comparison between those two teams, the post-1998 excitement about TU football was huge and deservedly so.
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 7489
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:26 am

tufinal4 wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:16 am
To me the huge difference is how thoroughly Tulane won those games in 1998 and went undefeated, vs squeaking by and going 7-6 in 2013. There is no comparison between those two teams, the post-1998 excitement about TU football was huge and deservedly so.
Until Scelfo came in and we got crushed in the season opener in 1999. That team (1999) had some really bad losses, going 3-9 and putting Tulane back to where it was prior to 1997.
" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
Aberzombie1892
Swell
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:05 am

winwave wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:49 am
Aberzombie1892 wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:53 am
Bicoastalwave wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:35 am
Weird i didnt think this topic was “which schedule was harder and whose d**k smaller 1998 vs 2013/2014”
Well, the topics generally end up at a point where someone says (paraphrasing), “The 2013 schedule was soooo easy, and Tulane clearly underperformed”. Then I say, “Sure, but’s let’s not pretend like the 1998 schedule was any better (which it wasn’t)”, yet, somehow, that leads to an unnecessary debate since it’s fairly easy to show that that was the case.

Highlights from the 1998 schedule:
1. Zero P5s.
2. Zero of Tulane’s away opponents won more than 5 games (only one won 5 - Rutgers).
3. Only 4 of Tulane’s opponents won 6 or more games (Louisville, USM, LaTech and bowl opponent BYU - only BYU won more than 7).
4. Tulane’s regular season OOC opponents were Navy (3-8), ULL (2-9), Rugers (5-6), Army (3-8), and LaTech (6-6). For perspective, 2 of Rutgers’ 5 wins were Army and Navy.
The '98 schedule wasn't manufactured to just produce a winning season. When you talk about records teams finished with you have to look at who they played versus who teams from '13 played. You can use whatever metric you want but the "98 schedule wasn't anywhere near as weak as the '13 schedule.
That’s exactly what I’m trying to understand. You claim it was much weaker, but it’s not clear what that is based on. However, it does sound like it may be based on brand recognition and not actual records.
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 13992
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:23 am

Wave QB wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:24 am
winwave wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:45 am
Wave QB wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:24 am
winwave wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:40 pm
Wave QB wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:10 pm
winwave wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:46 am
We continue to disagree. That 7-6 didn't give any great inspiration based off of the schedule it was done against and especially with the loss to ULL in the Bowl game. I have been following the program for six decades and know a multitude of season ticket holdrs. No one was buying season tickets because of what happened in 2013. It was all about the novelty of the new stadium.

In your second paragraph you finally admit it was a weak schedule. Before this you were saying it was tough with those teams on it winning 6-10 games. Just because I pointed that out doesn't mean I discredited the players on that team. I appreciate their efforts but the schedule was what it was and there's nothing wrong with being honest about it. Going 10-2 against it wouldn't have moved the needle much more. It was just that bad of a schedule.
Now your Wavedat leaf is starting to turn over. Don’t put words in my post. I never called that schedule tough. I pointed out the “fact” that the schedule wasn’t full of tomato cans as you are making it out to be. It’s was far from great, but it was what we needed to bring our program to a bowl season before opening up the new stadium. Not sure if you know every single alumni, but many who I know (and I have decades of fans in my pocket as well), showed up in support of the stadium and hopes of another winning season. Please don’t take away from what those kids did just because you disliked the schedule.
It's clear you have a personal connection to that team. Sorry you're offended but the scheduling was what it was. It was a soft schedule. It's not what we need going forward. It's as simple as that.
You aren’t offended me, you are offending kids who brought us a winning season that year. Every schedule that puts our program in the best position to have a breakout season and bowl appearance after consecutive ugly seasons is considered a smart schedule.
Not offending them. Just saying what you said there- the schedule was manufactured to produce a winning season. That's not what people want every year. They see it for what it is.

We have seen it for what it is too many years Winwave. If you haven’t noticed, we aren’t considered a winning program. At this point, we are going back and forth over over the same debate. However, I would like to get your opinion on something.

Which schedule would you prefer at this point in Tulane football.

Schedule A
Northwestern State
at South Alabama
ULM
at Kansas

Schedule B
Duke
at Oklahoma
Kentucky
at Nebraska.


Schedule C
LSU (Superdome)
at Michigan
TCU
at Stanford


Schedule D
La Tech
at UNLV
UTSA
at Clemson
I'll go with E:

USM
TCU
at Auburn
at La. Tech
Let's Roll !
winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 13992
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:26 am

Aberzombie1892 wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:05 am
winwave wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:49 am
Aberzombie1892 wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:53 am
Bicoastalwave wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:35 am
Weird i didnt think this topic was “which schedule was harder and whose d**k smaller 1998 vs 2013/2014”
Well, the topics generally end up at a point where someone says (paraphrasing), “The 2013 schedule was soooo easy, and Tulane clearly underperformed”. Then I say, “Sure, but’s let’s not pretend like the 1998 schedule was any better (which it wasn’t)”, yet, somehow, that leads to an unnecessary debate since it’s fairly easy to show that that was the case.

Highlights from the 1998 schedule:
1. Zero P5s.
2. Zero of Tulane’s away opponents won more than 5 games (only one won 5 - Rutgers).
3. Only 4 of Tulane’s opponents won 6 or more games (Louisville, USM, LaTech and bowl opponent BYU - only BYU won more than 7).
4. Tulane’s regular season OOC opponents were Navy (3-8), ULL (2-9), Rugers (5-6), Army (3-8), and LaTech (6-6). For perspective, 2 of Rutgers’ 5 wins were Army and Navy.
The '98 schedule wasn't manufactured to just produce a winning season. When you talk about records teams finished with you have to look at who they played versus who teams from '13 played. You can use whatever metric you want but the "98 schedule wasn't anywhere near as weak as the '13 schedule.
That’s exactly what I’m trying to understand. You claim it was much weaker, but it’s not clear what that is based on. However, it does sound like it may be based on brand recognition and not actual records.
It's based on not playing a bunch of teams that were pretty new to D-1 that were clearly lower rung programs. As to what those teams records ended up being yo have to take into account the soft schedules they played to get those records. More importantly the difference as noted above is that in "98 we destroyed those teams and truly did create a buzz leading into '99. The 2013 team didn't come anywhere close to that.
Let's Roll !
User avatar
NOLABigSteve
Riptide
Posts: 3286
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:00 am
Location: New Orleans, LA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:51 am

DfromCT wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:26 am
Until Scelfo came in and we got crushed in the season opener in 1999. That team (1999) had some really bad losses, going 3-9 and putting Tulane back to where it was prior to 1997.
That's what 3 consecutive weeks of 2-a-days in the August heat will do to a team. We legit stopped the 2-a-day practices ONE WEEK (that weekend) before the season opener. It was sad, the team never got their legs back that game prep week. And, well, we all know what happened at USM.

Anyways...
Roll Wave!
Tulane University c/o 2003
Football Defensive End '99, '00, '01, '02
2002 Hawaii Bowl Champions
School of Engineering (Computer Science)
User avatar
wave97
Swell
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:08 pm
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:07 am

tufinal4 wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:16 am
To me the huge difference is how thoroughly Tulane won those games in 1998 and went undefeated, vs squeaking by and going 7-6 in 2013. There is no comparison between those two teams, the post-1998 excitement about TU football was huge and deservedly so.
Could it have been because 1998 was the debut of the most transformational scheme in 53 years?
It is too bad that there isn't a patent/intellectual property for offensive schemes, Rich Rodriguez's Grandchildren would be set for life.

We have a creative OC and young depth up front on D and a relatively strong back 7. For the next few years, why would you intentionally water down the schedule for the sake of "wins"? What is the eternal refrain for the 1998 team? "Yeah, they were good, but if they only played somebody". Signature wins within the conference are essential, Strong OOC wins are paramount for the sake of the program and the Conference.
Last edited by wave97 on Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
nawlinspete
Swell
Posts: 2019
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:43 pm
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:45 am

DfromCT wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:26 am
tufinal4 wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:16 am
To me the huge difference is how thoroughly Tulane won those games in 1998 and went undefeated, vs squeaking by and going 7-6 in 2013. There is no comparison between those two teams, the post-1998 excitement about TU football was huge and deservedly so.
Until Scelfo came in and we got crushed in the season opener in 1999. That team (1999) had some really bad losses, going 3-9 and putting Tulane back to where it was prior to 1997.
Thanks for "this breaking news" , from storrs .We would have never known without your brilliant analysis.
Once and Again, With Smart Choices and a Bit Of Patience
Wave QB
Swell
Posts: 1740
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:09 am
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:56 am

winwave wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:23 am
Wave QB wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:24 am
winwave wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:45 am
Wave QB wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:24 am
winwave wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:40 pm
Wave QB wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:10 pm
winwave wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:46 am
We continue to disagree. That 7-6 didn't give any great inspiration based off of the schedule it was done against and especially with the loss to ULL in the Bowl game. I have been following the program for six decades and know a multitude of season ticket holdrs. No one was buying season tickets because of what happened in 2013. It was all about the novelty of the new stadium.

In your second paragraph you finally admit it was a weak schedule. Before this you were saying it was tough with those teams on it winning 6-10 games. Just because I pointed that out doesn't mean I discredited the players on that team. I appreciate their efforts but the schedule was what it was and there's nothing wrong with being honest about it. Going 10-2 against it wouldn't have moved the needle much more. It was just that bad of a schedule.
Now your Wavedat leaf is starting to turn over. Don’t put words in my post. I never called that schedule tough. I pointed out the “fact” that the schedule wasn’t full of tomato cans as you are making it out to be. It’s was far from great, but it was what we needed to bring our program to a bowl season before opening up the new stadium. Not sure if you know every single alumni, but many who I know (and I have decades of fans in my pocket as well), showed up in support of the stadium and hopes of another winning season. Please don’t take away from what those kids did just because you disliked the schedule.
It's clear you have a personal connection to that team. Sorry you're offended but the scheduling was what it was. It was a soft schedule. It's not what we need going forward. It's as simple as that.
You aren’t offended me, you are offending kids who brought us a winning season that year. Every schedule that puts our program in the best position to have a breakout season and bowl appearance after consecutive ugly seasons is considered a smart schedule.
Not offending them. Just saying what you said there- the schedule was manufactured to produce a winning season. That's not what people want every year. They see it for what it is.

We have seen it for what it is too many years Winwave. If you haven’t noticed, we aren’t considered a winning program. At this point, we are going back and forth over over the same debate. However, I would like to get your opinion on something.

Which schedule would you prefer at this point in Tulane football.

Schedule A
Northwestern State
at South Alabama
ULM
at Kansas

Schedule B
Duke
at Oklahoma
Kentucky
at Nebraska.


Schedule C
LSU (Superdome)
at Michigan
TCU
at Stanford


Schedule D
La Tech
at UNLV
UTSA
at Clemson
I'll go with E:

USM
TCU
at Auburn
at La. Tech
Got it. I like it.

My first choice would be D, but I wouldn’t turn my nose up a A if we were coming off a horrible season and needed to put training wheels back on for another season.
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 7489
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:48 pm

The problem is most of our (and even more of the top 1/2 of FBS') OOC schedules are set 3+ years in advance. How do we know if we'll be coming off a horrible season and need to dummy down the schedule? We don't. And we also don't know which teams are going to be any good or qualify as easy wins 3 or 4 years from now. Trying to schedule TCU, Clemson, Stanford, Michigan, and their peers would probably mean 10 years down the road from when the agreement to play is made. Keep in mind those schools can and do cancel OOC games at will.

And while the point about "teams that have relatively little track record at the FBS" level makes sense about not drawing fans, it doesn't give a clue as to how good or bad they will be. University of Buffalo, last year, would have been the favorite versus Tulane, even playing in Yulman.
" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
User avatar
Eaglewave
Swell
Posts: 2020
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:36 am
Status: Offline

Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:03 pm

DfromCT wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:48 pm
The problem is most of our (and even more of the top 1/2 of FBS') OOC schedules are set 3+ years in advance. How do we know if we'll be coming off a horrible season and need to dummy down the schedule? We don't. And we also don't know which teams are going to be any good or qualify as easy wins 3 or 4 years from now. Trying to schedule TCU, Clemson, Stanford, Michigan, and their peers would probably mean 10 years down the road from when the agreement to play is made. Keep in mind those schools can and do cancel OOC games at will.

And while the point about "teams that have relatively little track record at the FBS" level makes sense about not drawing fans, it doesn't give a clue as to how good or bad they will be. University of Buffalo, last year, would have been the favorite versus Tulane, even playing in Yulman.

Yeah. It’s tough catching the big boys at good times, but other G5’s are always available to schedule.


I think the 2020 is looking pretty good.

SLU
at Northwestern
Army
at Mississippi State
Bowl Wave!
golfnut69
Green Wave
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:38 am
Status: Offline

Wed Apr 24, 2019 7:50 am

Be a Hero Today.... Adopt a Shelter Pet... The Beatles once sang "Can't Buy Me Love"... I disagree, unconditional Love can be bought, for the nominal adoption fee at your local Pet Shelter !
DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 7489
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Offline

Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:03 pm

I think the Pirates are going to be much improved and could get to a bowl game this year. By year 2 of Mike Houston's tenure, they'll compete for the AAC Championship.
" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." --Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia
Post Reply