They put it up for discussion, you placed your opinion, they placed their opinion on you opinion...seems fair to me.Theee Catrabbit wrote:Hey, if you don't want anyone to comment on your ugly ass field, keep it off the board. Especially when summer is so slow.kalm wrote:
And because catrabbit honestly tried to like it, it's not just his opinion, it's a fact.
It is pretty much fact that shits ugly. But hey keep defending it like it's your redheaded stepbrother.
Hey, if you can't handle anyone calling you out on your pretentiously insignificant and asinine comments, then don't post them. Especially when you're a f*ckin' tard. It's pretty much fact that you take it up the ass nightly. But hey, keep pretending the shit packed up your ass doesn't fall out your mouth when you talk.Theee Catrabbit wrote:Hey, if you don't want anyone to comment on your ugly ass field, keep it off the board. Especially when summer is so slow.kalm wrote:
And because catrabbit honestly tried to like it, it's not just his opinion, it's a fact.
It is pretty much fact that shits ugly. But hey keep defending it like it's your redheaded stepbrother.
That's not wishful thinking. He averaged 2ypc more on turf last year than at home on our shoddy grass (mud) field.bpcats wrote:I think EWU will really like their new turf. EWU has the right priorities as far as getting the new scoreboard etc.
In the long run like the visitor side have more seats put in, have track taken out separating fans from the field etc. EWU has at least taken steps in the right direction and I don't think the red turf will be that big of a deal after a year or two.
I do disagree that Jones will average 2ypc more just because he is on turf. That is just wishful thinking.
Jones averaged 6.1 yards per carry at home on the grass surface of Woodward Field, but that was boosted to 8.2 in EWU’s other eight games on fields that featured seven artificial surfaces as well as one grass field at Sacramento State with excellent footing.
I'd like to see that broken down into who he played on turf vs grass, his long in those games, carries, etc...Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:That's not wishful thinking. He averaged 2ypc more on turf last year than at home on our shoddy grass (mud) field.bpcats wrote:I think EWU will really like their new turf. EWU has the right priorities as far as getting the new scoreboard etc.
In the long run like the visitor side have more seats put in, have track taken out separating fans from the field etc. EWU has at least taken steps in the right direction and I don't think the red turf will be that big of a deal after a year or two.
I do disagree that Jones will average 2ypc more just because he is on turf. That is just wishful thinking.
Jones averaged 6.1 yards per carry at home on the grass surface of Woodward Field, but that was boosted to 8.2 in EWU’s other eight games on fields that featured seven artificial surfaces as well as one grass field at Sacramento State with excellent footing.
I agree, it should be in black with white outline. But they just started on the logo work yesterday, so I am sure that it's not the final product yet.Willie wrote:The biggest mistake they're making...make the eagle all black with a white outline.
Uh, when there's a red football field involved, the color of the logo on it is FAR from the biggest mistake being madeWillie wrote:The biggest mistake they're making...make the eagle all black with a white outline.
.
I have to agree with that.SouthDakotaGrizzly wrote:Uh, when there's a red football field involved, the color of the logo on it is FAR from the biggest mistake being madeWillie wrote:The biggest mistake they're making...make the eagle all black with a white outline.
First thing I thought when I saw the picture too. Maybe it will be that way when done as has been said.Willie wrote:The biggest mistake they're making...make the eagle all black with a white outline.
Home Games - Carries - Yards - LongUNI31f wrote:I'd like to see that broken down into who he played on turf vs grass, his long in those games, carries, etc...Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
That's not wishful thinking. He averaged 2ypc more on turf last year than at home on our shoddy grass (mud) field.
Stats like that, when standing alone, can be very deserving. I'm not saying it wasn't a legit 2 yards more per carry, but I'm not a firm believer right now.
I like it with the EWU letters white. The logo wouldn't stand out as much with it all black and a white outline. The way it is right now is the way it's planned out.Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:First thing I thought when I saw the picture too. Maybe it will be that way when done as has been said.Willie wrote:The biggest mistake they're making...make the eagle all black with a white outline.
I've seen this as your analysis before. It makes sense that he will have better #'s on the turf. But it also makes sense that the opposition will have better #'s.Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:Home Games - Carries - Yards - LongUNI31f wrote:I'd like to see that broken down into who he played on turf vs grass, his long in those games, carries, etc...
Stats like that, when standing alone, can be very deserving. I'm not saying it wasn't a legit 2 yards more per carry, but I'm not a firm believer right now.
Westen Oregon - 12 - 122 - 87
Northern Colorado - 18 - 95 - 34
Weber State 13 - 64 - 13
Montana State 12 - 55 - 10
Avg. 6.1ypc
Non-EWU grass Games - Carries - Yards - Long
California - 4 - 2 - 4
Sac State - 15 - 190 - 38 (grass field, but Central Cali in Sept... great footing)
Idaho State - 14 - 168 - 96
Montana - 17 - 145 - 52
Portland State - 12 - 62 - 47
Southern Utah - 17 - 77 - 15
Northern Arizona - 13 - 115 - 71
Stephen F. Austin - 15 - 118 - 32
Avg. 8.2ypc
And yes, his stats are very deserving!
That's certainly a possibility, but if that's the case those opposing backs #s aren't going to be inflated a great deal as they only played 1 game on our field every two years.Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:I've seen this as your analysis before. It makes sense that he will have better #'s on the turf. But it also makes sense that the opposition will have better #'s.Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
Home Games - Carries - Yards - Long
Westen Oregon - 12 - 122 - 87
Northern Colorado - 18 - 95 - 34
Weber State 13 - 64 - 13
Montana State 12 - 55 - 10
Avg. 6.1ypc
Non-EWU grass Games - Carries - Yards - Long
California - 4 - 2 - 4
Sac State - 15 - 190 - 38 (grass field, but Central Cali in Sept... great footing)
Idaho State - 14 - 168 - 96
Montana - 17 - 145 - 52
Portland State - 12 - 62 - 47
Southern Utah - 17 - 77 - 15
Northern Arizona - 13 - 115 - 71
Stephen F. Austin - 15 - 118 - 32
Avg. 8.2ypc
And yes, his stats are very deserving!
In those games that you have for him as stats what were the opposition back #'s in comparison to what they do on turf?
It may be that everybody's #'s were down on the old EWU field a bit because it was not a great feild wouldn't you agree?
Yes, but in each game it matters and those opposing backs would matter if they were collectively considered the "Away" back vs. the "Home" back. That is how one would have to look at this.Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:That's certainly a possibility, but if that's the case those opposing backs #s aren't going to be inflated a great deal as they only played 1 game on our field every two years.Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: I've seen this as your analysis before. It makes sense that he will have better #'s on the turf. But it also makes sense that the opposition will have better #'s.
In those games that you have for him as stats what were the opposition back #'s in comparison to what they do on turf?
It may be that everybody's #'s were down on the old EWU field a bit because it was not a great feild wouldn't you agree?
When are they expected to finish all the lettering?Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:I like it with the EWU letters white. The logo wouldn't stand out as much with it all black and a white outline. The way it is right now is the way it's planned out.
Agreed, but I seriously doubt it lowers opposing backs' average by a whole two yards. It just seems that solid footing/initial burst is more crucial to TJ's style... which is of course speed. If he gets through the hole or to the outside quick enough, he's gone. The muddy, torn up grass certainly made a difference in whether he was tackled for a short gain, or slips past a DE or LB and busts it for a big gain. I would think that shorter, stockier backs wouldn't have as much a problem with that because they can break tackles easier.Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:Yes, but in each game it matters and those opposing backs would matter if they were collectively considered the "Away" back vs. the "Home" back. That is how one would have to look at this.Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
That's certainly a possibility, but if that's the case those opposing backs #s aren't going to be inflated a great deal as they only played 1 game on our field every two years.
These stats don't matter if they are not winning those games at a greater rate than before the turf is what I'm getting at. I mean unless you are only going for stats that is.
Ursus, its not rocket science. TJ is going to have overall better stats this season bc of better footing at home. (5 games)Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Yes, but in each game it matters and those opposing backs would matter if they were collectively considered the "Away" back vs. the "Home" back. That is how one would have to look at this.
These stats don't matter if they are not winning those games at a greater rate than before the turf is what I'm getting at. I mean unless you are only going for stats that is.
The finished the EASTERN yesterday, and are working on WASHINGTON today, so I'd assume either today or early tomorrow. Everything else is done, so once the lettering is finished they'll be laying down the rubber pellet infill. I'd imagine they could wrap it up by the end of the day Friday, or Monday at the latest... they've been a week or two ahead of schedule the whole way through.89Hen wrote:When are they expected to finish all the lettering?Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:I like it with the EWU letters white. The logo wouldn't stand out as much with it all black and a white outline. The way it is right now is the way it's planned out.
BF, his contention was that the turf will also help opposing backs stats, so if TJ's increased production doesn't equate to wins, it won't matter.BlackFalkin wrote:Ursus, its not rocket science. TJ is going to have overall better stats this season bc of better footing at home. (4 games)Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Yes, but in each game it matters and those opposing backs would matter if they were collectively considered the "Away" back vs. the "Home" back. That is how one would have to look at this.
These stats don't matter if they are not winning those games at a greater rate than before the turf is what I'm getting at. I mean unless you are only going for stats that is.
4 ROOS field games
1 Quest game
There's one logo missing per the photo.Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:The finished the EASTERN yesterday, and are working on WASHINGTON today, so I'd assume either today or early tomorrow. Everything else is done, so once the lettering is finished they'll be laying down the rubber pellet infill. I'd imagine they could wrap it up by the end of the day Friday, or Monday at the latest... they've been a week or two ahead of schedule the whole way through.89Hen wrote: When are they expected to finish all the lettering?
You mean the photo you so poorly doctored by adding your signature? Look, I get it. You're on the rag 24/7/365. You should seek some help for that.89Hen wrote:There's one logo missing per the photo.Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
The finished the EASTERN yesterday, and are working on WASHINGTON today, so I'd assume either today or early tomorrow. Everything else is done, so once the lettering is finished they'll be laying down the rubber pellet infill. I'd imagine they could wrap it up by the end of the day Friday, or Monday at the latest... they've been a week or two ahead of schedule the whole way through.
Just making sure the media doesn't erroneously report that the field doesn't have a nickname yet.Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:You mean the photo you so poorly doctored by adding your signature? Look, I get it.
