---

1disgusted-college-fan2 wrote:

UTvols,

 

I said I did not think Ainge looked that good.

 

It is not a matter of percentages.  He needed to lift his inexperienced receivers.  He did for the most part 'statistically'.

BUT, I felt he missed a couple of criticals and he did have a couple dropped late in the game.

 

Saying 'not good' is not the same as  saying 'BAD'.

 

I think the chaleenge was for them to gain experience quickly.  It was puzzling when they seemed to click initially and yet did not whne time was critical.

 

We cannot know what the mental state of these young people was.  Admittedly, the psychology of their desire is more in the responsibility realm of the coaches.  BUT, Ainge is a senior and the receivers are young.  I do not think he looked good as far as inspiring his o-team.  That is an intangible of leadership.

 

As I said they were to predictable, and I did not see 'fire in the belly'. 

 

I am one who thinks Cal has some talent, and you need the intangibles to overcome such.  I think it is early in the season, and we will have a much better indicator when we can see next week how they react to the loss.  Such is the nature of the game.

 

Frankly, I think the Cal QB looked like more of a leader than Ainge did in THAT game. 

 

It doesn't have anything to do with percentages of passes completed.  I'm looking for 'spirit'. 

---

---

UTVols wrote:

Cal was up by a lot about the third quarter, and they were over on the sideline lauphing joking around because they did not get a touchdown. I saw this many of times. Tennessee was the team that made the comback and I thought they played hard even to the end of the game.

---

---

1disgusted-college-fan2 wrote:

UTvols,

 

Ok, I'll grant that there was a display of determination and a spirit to not quit.

 

I still say that often, the 'leader' has to execute exceptionally.  Especially when it comes to inspiring a group to overcome adversity.  I'll ask you to recall, that I granted we could not 'know' what was in the players' minds, and that the psychology there of, is generally in the realm of the coaches' repsonsibility.

 

I also reiterate that the play calling was too predictable.  I would aquiesce and note that there are talented individuals all over your team.

 

I do recall lots of individual determination, but there was not a comeback.  I may be in the minority but to me a 'comeback' is more like AP St being caught and put behind in score, and STILL coming 'back' to win.

 

I can be an 'ah', but to me things like Joe Montana being 'too small' and 'not having the arm', yet somehow doing all the things to LEAD his team to championships is what it's about.  I can admire Dan Marino, his size, his arm strength and his passing statistics, but; I have to conclude that Montana was more than that.  Marino NEVER led his teams to a victory in the BIG one.

 

You may not be familiar, but; even as a GATOR FAN, I wa not hesitant in criticizing Chris Leak in his 'el foldo' at Auburn last year.  On the other hand, I was the first to note the big difference in his assertiveness in te BCS game against OSU at the end of the season.

 

I am not picking on Ainge, as I said I don't think he looked 'that good'.  You were in a venue, at their place, with them holding a perceived 'grudge'.  It was not bad because they were expected to be a little better than you.  I feel that the numbers of the statistics are as you not very good, yet the intangible spirit to lift his team was not so.

 

I suppose that I admire the foundation of line play and Fulmer is known for that, but; I repeat, y'all looked 'outcoached', and I did not see your 'o leader' lift your team.

---

Folks in Big Ten country think the SEC's gotten a little uppity. So what if Michigan lost to Appalachian State? Remember the Maine (upset of Mississippi State)?

A blog called Buckeye Planet compares the Big Ten and SEC head to head. It's good stuff, and the result is there's barely an iota of difference between the two conferences:

We have all heard the talk since last year about the SEC dominance and tsuns recent egg laying has certainly made it worse. I thought I'd throw some stuff out there so anyone can reference it during their next conversation with an SEC dominace believer.

Since the inception of the BCS system in 1998 B10 vs SEC head to headOverall: SEC 17 B10 16
SEC Home team: SEC 4 B10 O
B10 Home team: B10 3 SEC 2
Bowl Games: B10 13 SEC 11
# of winning Bowl seasons: B10 5 SEC 2 (2 ties)
Total combined scores of all Bowl games: 609-623
When B10 is higher ranked team: 6-6
When SEC is higher ranked team: B10 5 SEC 4
When both unranked or same rank: B10 2 SEC 1:

That's merely a glimpse. For more, go to Buckeye Planet.