Vols vs Cal line is out +5

#51
#51
#52
#52
#57
#57
BigPapaVol said:
holy crap. here comes some worthless mention of the director's cup (which I'd never heard of before the cal lurkers) and some jibberish about Rhodes scholars.
Click to expand...

No way they pull out the Directors Cup standings this year :)
 
#58
#58
utvolpj said:
No way they pull out the Directors Cup standings this year :)
Click to expand...
droski has pulled out here on numerous occasions. unfortunately, he couldn't see the quizzical looks from those who know this to be a football and basketball centric board.
 
#59
#59
BigPapaVol said:
we typically beat Vandy style squads on the road, even with their home field advantage.

take your punting hangtime arguments, add the square of the cubed root of the projected line and you've got jack. UT killed Cal last year at home. Home field advantage did not generate the athletic ability gap (or scoring gap for that matter) that existed in that game. Your squad's lack of athletes was clearly the problem.
Click to expand...

BigPapaVol, you have completely missed my point. My punting hangtime arguments were directed to VIA's post about Tenn's punt coverage being awful, and that there is a correlation between hangtime and coverage (the more hangtime a punter puts on the ball, the more time the coverage team has to get to the returner). Not once did I mention punting somehow being involved in Cal's loss to Tenn last year.

From this you said:

BigPapaVol said:
Difficult road environment is a lame excuse for the laugher that game became very early in the 2nd half.
Click to expand...

What that has to do with my original statement I have no idea.
 
#60
#60
BigPapaVol said:
we typically beat Vandy style squads on the road, even with their home field advantage.

take your punting hangtime arguments, add the square of the cubed root of the projected line and you've got jack. UT killed Cal last year at home. Home field advantage did not generate the athletic ability gap (or scoring gap for that matter) that existed in that game. Your squad's lack of athletes was clearly the problem.
Click to expand...

Again, I never said that homefield was the only reason Cal lost last year's game. Please check my post again. I simply gave empirical evidence of how Fulmer's record at home is significantly better than away, and how Cal went undefeated at home last year, and that maybe those number aren't coincidental and that homefield somehow does play a factor in games.

Even the team with better athletes lose sometime (Tenn vs Penn State last year). Do you think that would have happened if you were playing at Neyland? Even if you do, do Penn State's chances of pulling the upset remain unchanged if it were played at Neyland? I highly doubt it. My point is, sure, Cal may lack the athletes that Tenn has, but playing at Neyland certainly lowered their chances of winning.
 
#61
#61
CalTL said:
Again, I never said that homefield was the only reason Cal lost last year's game. Please check my post again. I simply gave empirical evidence of how Fulmer's record at home is significantly better than away, and how Cal went undefeated at home last year, and that maybe those number aren't coincidental and that homefield somehow does play a factor in games.
Click to expand...
You spewed back my empirical evidence language. How else should I take that comment. You were implying that the home field is an enormous advantage. I said that advantage in no way accounts for the drubbing we saw last year in Knoxville.
 
#62
#62
CalTL said:
BigPapaVol, you have completely missed my point. My punting hangtime arguments were directed to VIA's post about Tenn's punt coverage being awful, and that there is a correlation between hangtime and coverage (the more hangtime a punter puts on the ball, the more time the coverage team has to get to the returner). Not once did I mention punting somehow being involved in Cal's loss to Tenn last year.

From this you said:



What that has to do with my original statement I have no idea.
Click to expand...
You were definitely pointing to a huge home field advantage for us last year and implying that the same will hold true this year because Cal didn't lose at home last year. I'm saying, we would have killed you AT Cal last year and that is the only empirical evidence there is.

As for the punting garbage, I'm just making fun of you for even debating that with someone. You certainly deserved it for even mentioninng hangtime.
 
#63
#63
BigPapaVol said:
You spewed back my empirical evidence language. How else should I take that comment. You were implying that the home field is an enormous advantage. I said that advantage in no way accounts for the drubbing we saw last year in Knoxville.
Click to expand...

I really can't believe what I'm reading. Do you seriously think that playing on the road in a hostile environment "IN NO WAY ACCOUNTS" for Cal losing last year? Sure, Cal probably would've lost anyways even if the game was played on a neutral field, but I wasn't arguing about that. All I said was that homefield contributed to the loss, I'm sorry if you somehow implied anything different. Here was my post:

CalTL said:
Here is some empirical evidence:

Fulmer's record at Tennessee
137-41 Straight Up
77-16 Home
49-16 Away
11-9 Neutral

Cal's only 3 losses came on the road and was undefeated at home.

You can argue playing on the road is a lame excuse and teams should be more prepared, but there is a reason they call it home field ADVANTAGE.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge that Cal should have been more prepared and that homefield might be a lame excuse, but if you really believe that homefield "in no way accounts" for Cal's loss, then...don't know what to say about that....
 
#64
#64
BigPapaVol said:
You were definitely pointing to a huge home field advantage for us last year and implying that the same will hold true this year because Cal didn't lose at home last year.
Click to expand...

Wow, you certainly got a lot out of my evidence showing there is such a thing as homefield advantage.

BigPapaVol said:
I'm saying, we would have killed you AT Cal last year and that is the only empirical evidence there is.
Click to expand...

HHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH. Empirical evidence based on one game. Oh yea, an imaginary game played AT Cal = "the only empirical evidence there is." ROFL...classic...

BigPapaVol said:
As for the punting garbage, I'm just making fun of you for even debating that with someone. You certainly deserved it for even mentioning hangtime.
Click to expand...

If you recall, I was trying to make a point that Larson (Cal's punter) is just as good as Colquitt, and that's where hangtime came it. I know how hilarious it can be when someone tries to compare two players and decide which player might give a team the advantage in a game....
 
#65
#65
BigPapaVol said:
I'm saying, we would have killed you AT Cal last year and that is the only empirical evidence there is.
Click to expand...

Just so we're clear.

The dictionary (Webster's) definition of empirical evidence is: evidence relating to or based on experience or observation.

Was there a Tenn-Cal game played in Berkeley last year that no one told me about?
 
#66
#66
Damn people, STAY ON TOPIC HERE. We are talking about gambling. I have seen the line at Cal -4-. Take UT on the money line and go to the bank smiling with a nice bankroll to play the season with.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top