um/WSU game

[GrizinWashington]

The additional two years is a huge advantage: boys essentially turn into men during that time, both physically and emotionally.

The reason BYU (and by extension, Weber) hasn't won championships is because they limit their recruiting to almost exclusively Mormons. Anytime you limit your base to a small segment of the population, you're going to have a difficult time competing with the OSUs, OKs and USCs of the world.

now i'm just getting confused. how is it a huge advantage? boys turn into men? then like i asked before, if weber has this huge advantage then why don't they win consistently? and using your example, they still do not have a huge advantage because they limit their own recruiting. all i'm saying is that weber having older players doesn't give them any advantage. GIW...areyou just doing that griz thing where your team just lost so you need to think of something quick to explain it? "well the reason they got killed out there today, is that weber is utilizing their MEN on the field where all the griz had were these boys; both physically and emotionally."

First, I didn't even raise this issue. I simply agreed to a point many others made.

Second, of COURSE bigger, stronger, more mature men are going to be better at football. I've never heard ANYONE associated with college football that doesn't agree that having players that are 23 or 24 is an advantage to having players that are 20, 21. Even arguing that point seems ridiculous and pointless IMO.

Third, you answered your own question about Weber. They haven't won consistently because they limit their recruiting.

I don't know why this isn't clear. Does my typing have a lisp or something?

[whitetrashgriz]

The additional two years is a huge advantage: boys essentially turn into men during that time, both physically and emotionally.

The reason BYU (and by extension, Weber) hasn't won championships is because they limit their recruiting to almost exclusively Mormons. Anytime you limit your base to a small segment of the population, you're going to have a difficult time competing with the OSUs, OKs and USCs of the world.

now i'm just getting confused. how is it a huge advantage? boys turn into men? then like i asked before, if weber has this huge advantage then why don't they win consistently? and using your example, they still do not have a huge advantage because they limit their own recruiting. all i'm saying is that weber having older players doesn't give them any advantage. GIW...areyou just doing that griz thing where your team just lost so you need to think of something quick to explain it? "well the reason they got killed out there today, is that weber is utilizing their MEN on the field where all the griz had were these boys; both physically and emotionally."

First, I didn't even raise this issue. I simply agreed to a point many others made.

Second, of COURSE bigger, stronger, more mature men are going to be better at football. I've never heard ANYONE associated with college football that doesn't agree that having players that are 23 or 24 is an advantage to having players that are 20, 21. Even arguing that point seems ridiculous and pointless IMO.

you agreed to a point many others made? by many others do you mean the one poster, sky writer? and i see what you're trying to do here. i don't think i've ever heard anyone associated with college football that doesn't agree that having players that are 23 or 24 is an advantage to having players 20 or 21 either. more time than not when this scenario plays out the 23 or 24 years old are seniors, where the 21 year old is a freshman. i think we agree that more times than not you'd like to have the senior over the freshman. the point sky writer made was that weber has a huge advantage because they have players that are 26 and 27. unless they are 7 year seniors, they haven't been playing football the entire time. my point was age is overrated when it comes to teams such as weber because many of their players leave for missions, only to come back and play. do there 26 and 27 year olds really have an advantage over our 23 and 24 year old seniors? i personally don't think so. so try to spin it anyway you like, but they could have a 30 year old on their team for all i care, you're not gonna convince me that they're better than the bobby daly's and colt andersons because they're older by 3 years.

Third, you answered your own question about Weber. They haven't won consistently because they limit their recruiting.

I don't know why this isn't clear. Does my typing have a lisp or something?

[whitetrashgriz]

The additional two years is a huge advantage: boys essentially turn into men during that time, both physically and emotionally.

The reason BYU (and by extension, Weber) hasn't won championships is because they limit their recruiting to almost exclusively Mormons. Anytime you limit your base to a small segment of the population, you're going to have a difficult time competing with the OSUs, OKs and USCs of the world.

now i'm just getting confused. how is it a huge advantage? boys turn into men? then like i asked before, if weber has this huge advantage then why don't they win consistently? and using your example, they still do not have a huge advantage because they limit their own recruiting. all i'm saying is that weber having older players doesn't give them any advantage. GIW...areyou just doing that griz thing where your team just lost so you need to think of something quick to explain it? "well the reason they got killed out there today, is that weber is utilizing their MEN on the field where all the griz had were these boys; both physically and emotionally."

First, I didn't even raise this issue. I simply agreed to a point many others made.

Second, of COURSE bigger, stronger, more mature men are going to be better at football. I've never heard ANYONE associated with college football that doesn't agree that having players that are 23 or 24 is an advantage to having players that are 20, 21. Even arguing that point seems ridiculous and pointless IMO.

you agreed to a point many others made? by many others do you mean the one poster, sky writer? and i see what you're trying to do here. i don't think i've ever heard anyone associated with college football that doesn't agree that having players that are 23 or 24 is an advantage to having players 20 or 21 either. more time than not when this scenario plays out the 23 or 24 years old are seniors, where the 21 year old is a freshman. i think we agree that more times than not you'd like to have the senior over the freshman. the point sky writer made was that weber has a huge advantage because they have players that are 26 and 27. unless they are 7 year seniors, they haven't been playing football the entire time. my point was age is overrated when it comes to teams such as weber because many of their players leave for missions, only to come back and play. do there 26 and 27 year olds really have an advantage over our 23 and 24 year old seniors? i personally don't think so. so try to spin it anyway you like, but they could have a 30 year old on their team for all i care, you're not gonna convince me that they're better than the bobby daly's and colt andersons because they're older by 3 years.

[whitetrashgriz]

The additional two years is a huge advantage: boys essentially turn into men during that time, both physically and emotionally.

The reason BYU (and by extension, Weber) hasn't won championships is because they limit their recruiting to almost exclusively Mormons. Anytime you limit your base to a small segment of the population, you're going to have a difficult time competing with the OSUs, OKs and USCs of the world.

now i'm just getting confused. how is it a huge advantage? boys turn into men? then like i asked before, if weber has this huge advantage then why don't they win consistently? and using your example, they still do not have a huge advantage because they limit their own recruiting. all i'm saying is that weber having older players doesn't give them any advantage. GIW...areyou just doing that griz thing where your team just lost so you need to think of something quick to explain it? "well the reason they got killed out there today, is that weber is utilizing their MEN on the field where all the griz had were these boys; both physically and emotionally."

First, I didn't even raise this issue. I simply agreed to a point many others made.

Second, of COURSE bigger, stronger, more mature men are going to be better at football. I've never heard ANYONE associated with college football that doesn't agree that having players that are 23 or 24 is an advantage to having players that are 20, 21. Even arguing that point seems ridiculous and pointless IMO.

you agreed to a point many others made? by many others do you mean the one poster, sky writer? and i see what you're trying to do here. i don't think i've ever heard anyone associated with college football that doesn't agree that having players that are 23 or 24 is an advantage to having players 20 or 21 either. more time than not when this scenario plays out the 23 or 24 years old are seniors, where the 21 year old is a freshman. i think we agree that more times than not you'd like to have the senior over the freshman. the point sky writer made was that weber has a huge advantage because they have players that are 26 and 27. unless they are 7 year seniors, they haven't been playing football the entire time. my point was age is overrated when it comes to teams such as weber because many of their players leave for missions, only to come back and play. do there 26 and 27 year olds really have an advantage over our 23 and 24 year old seniors? i personally don't think so. so try to spin it anyway you like, but they could have a 30 year old on their team for all i care, you're not gonna convince me that they're better than the bobby daly's and colt andersons because they're older by 3 years.

and show me one place where i said the bigger and stronger men won't be better at football? don't put words in my mouth to prove your point. just because you're older, doesn't make you better. especially when you've been away from the game, and away from the system. i could argue that the cats have a HUGE advantage because all of our kids have been in the system, without being away for 2 years. you argument is weak. keep thinking of the excuses why the griz lost. i'll just listen to the rational ones that know you got your asses handed to you because weber was the better team that day, and not because of their huge age advantage!

[BentonGrizFan]

I think you guys have a fetish with bigger, stronger, older men.

[whitetrashgriz]

I think you guys have a fetish with bigger, stronger, older men.

you'll have to ask the guy who claims he knows the age when boys become men!