Villanova @ Temple Game Thread

[BDKJMU]

I doubt it. Temple was a bowl team last year (and figures to be one again).

I'm not taking anything away from Nova (I thought they looked good in the game), but let's not get carried away with what it takes to be a "bowl team" any more. A 9-3 Temple team was invited to the prestigious EagleBank Bowl last season in balmy, bucolic Washington DC and was smoked by a 6-6 rebuilding UCLA team.

I wouldn't call losing by 9 points getting smoked.

[Mvemjsunpx]

I doubt it. Temple was a bowl team last year (and figures to be one again).

I'm not taking anything away from Nova (I thought they looked good in the game), but let's not get carried away with what it takes to be a "bowl team" any more. A 9-3 Temple team was invited to the prestigious EagleBank Bowl last season in balmy, bucolic Washington DC and was smoked by a 6-6 rebuilding UCLA team.

Well, OK, but even a middle-of-the-pack FBS team is roughly equal to a top-tier FCS team. I think Temple is a little better than middle-of-the-pack, though probably not much better.

[SeattleGriz]

I'm not taking anything away from Nova (I thought they looked good in the game), but let's not get carried away with what it takes to be a "bowl team" any more. A 9-3 Temple team was invited to the prestigious EagleBank Bowl last season in balmy, bucolic Washington DC and was smoked by a 6-6 rebuilding UCLA team.

I wouldn't call losing by 9 points getting smoked.

Wasn't Temple a running team? Wasn't the field frozen last year and 19 with the windchill? Getting beat by a rebuilding, bottom half of the Pac 10 LA school on a slick, cold field by 9 when your strength is running was getting smoked.

[Aho Old Guy]

Temple (and the MAC) still suck.

So I guess that you also think FCS football also sucks since Temple just beat the FCS champ?

Clearly you have taken too many blows to the head or your analytical thinking is on the level of a 7 year old. You have not bothered to follow this thread so I'll give you a few hints:

The Kitties (with a few exceptions) are doing everything they need to do to win this ballgame.

They're controlling the ball --- if they don't turn the ball over (like that 'floatah' interception Whitney tossed) they can grind it out for the win...

Nova is just plain better than Temple.

They're better coached - they pick up their assignments - their execution is better - their play calling is better - and their overall offensive and defensive schemes are better.

And from the looks of things their Co-eds are better

I thought temple was supposed to be decent?

Good job 'nova.

Yeah ... me, too.

They've got some skilled guys, fast guys, big guys, more athletic guys --- but Nova just looks like a better ball team.

Do you have any more stupid questions or are you just trolling and looking for a fight?

[BlueHen86]

So I guess that you also think FCS football also sucks since Temple just beat the FCS champ?

Clearly you have taken too many blows to the head or your analytical thinking is on the level of a 7 year old. You have not bothered to follow this thread so I'll give you a few hints:

The Kitties (with a few exceptions) are doing everything they need to do to win this ballgame.

They're controlling the ball --- if they don't turn the ball over (like that 'floatah' interception Whitney tossed) they can grind it out for the win...

Nova is just plain better than Temple.

They're better coached - they pick up their assignments - their execution is better - their play calling is better - and their overall offensive and defensive schemes are better.

And from the looks of things their Co-eds are better

Yeah ... me, too.

They've got some skilled guys, fast guys, big guys, more athletic guys --- but Nova just looks like a better ball team.

Do you have any more stupid questions or are you just trolling and looking for a fight?

Wow. Way to get personal. It'a a message board. I wasn't looking for a fight, I was looking for a discussion. You made a comment that I questioned, that is the way message boards work.

It must suck to be so insecure that you lash out every time someone questions you, you remind me of Ralph on AGS - except that Ralph knew his football. What a jackass.

[YoUDeeMan]

Do you have any more stupid questions or are you just trolling and looking for a fight?

Wow. Way to get personal. It'a a message board. I wasn't looking for a fight, I was looking for a discussion. You made a comment that I questioned, that is the way message boards work.

It must suck to be so insecure that you lash out every time someone questions you, you remind me of Ralph on AGS - except that Ralph knew his football. What a jackass.

No, he's an "Aho".

[BlueHen86]

Wow. Way to get personal. It'a a message board. I wasn't looking for a fight, I was looking for a discussion. You made a comment that I questioned, that is the way message boards work.

It must suck to be so insecure that you lash out every time someone questions you, you remind me of Ralph on AGS - except that Ralph knew his football. What a jackass.

No, he's an "Aho".

[Aho Old Guy]

Clearly you have taken too many blows to the head or your analytical thinking is on the level of a 7 year old. You have not bothered to follow this thread so I'll give you a few hints:







Do you have any more stupid questions or are you just trolling and looking for a fight?

Wow. Way to get personal. It'a a message board. I wasn't looking for a fight, I was looking for a discussion. You made a comment that I questioned, that is the way message boards work.

It must suck to be so insecure that you lash out every time someone questions you, you remind me of Ralph on AGS - except that Ralph knew his football. What a jackass.

Let me make sure I've got this right.

Your idea of a 'discussion' on a message board is to not read a thread, commit a logical fallacy implying a causal link to a single post I made, then play the victim card, and subsequently call me insecure and a jackass.

Did I miss anything?

[BlueHen86]

Wow. Way to get personal. It'a a message board. I wasn't looking for a fight, I was looking for a discussion. You made a comment that I questioned, that is the way message boards work.

It must suck to be so insecure that you lash out every time someone questions you, you remind me of Ralph on AGS - except that Ralph knew his football. What a jackass.

Let me make sure I've got this right.

Your idea of a 'discussion' on a message board is to not read a thread, commit a logical fallacy implying a causal link to a single post I made, then play the victim card, and subsequently call me insecure and a jackass.

Did I miss anything?

You don't have it right.

I did read the whole thread. You keep posting on how Villanova is better than Temple and how Villanova should win. Then, when 'Nova loses you proclaim that Temple sucks.

Logic would indicate that you think Villanova sucks since they lost to Temple and you think Temple sucks. If that is not your position then why don't you just answer my question instead of getting personal.

Anyone can get personal on a message board, now show us that you can conduct an adult conversation.