Welcome to the Friday Feedback, which doesn’t think this is part of the plan. Two weeks ago, Dana Holgorsen went on his radio show and said he was benching Paul Millard in favor of Ford Childress. And I thought, at that time, maybe that was all choreographed. I suspect this may be part of a plan that they were hoping, willing and eventually ready to execute.
It made sense, if only between these ears. I though it was a more calculated move than watching Paul Millard flick footballs around Norman and go, “Notuh. Gimme Ford.” I may have everything wrong this season. Fair warning.
Anyhow, Dana had his radio show last night and said he was starting Clint Trickett Saturday against Oklahoma State and that Ford Childress, fresh off a Millardian showing against Maryland, has a torn pectoral muscle … and will be out for a week or so?
Childress didn’t practice all week and Holgorsen knew Sunday that Childress wouldn’t play. He nevertheless used every provided opportunity Monday and Tuesday to reaffirm his commitment to Childress, though, to be fair, maybe we know why Childress struggled Saturday and couldn’t and wouldn’t push the ball down the field.
No, the protection wasn’t great and, yes, the coverage was constructed in a way to take those throws away, but not on every possible occasion. I didn’t buy that explanation, but I thought that was a shield for a young QB having a bad day.
But now, with a torn pectoral muscle, you have to wonder many things. You have to believe there was a physical problem that prevented some of those throws. But when did it occur? In the first quarter? In the fourth? Should he have been in the game? Did he need to come out? Did Childress disclose it? All questions we could have asked had we known and not been made to believe that writing about finding Childress’ comfort zone was a good idea.
So what of Trickett? Well, I had Jed Drenning on “Scoop & Score” last night and that was one of a few WVU topics we covered. He believes, like Dana apparently suggested on his radio show last night, that it’s temporarily a temporary thing and that Childress will have a chance to get his job back when his torn pectoral muscle heals in a week or so, but that Trickett has a chance to take the job, win a game and run and hide.
What a weird week.
Onto the Feedback. As always, comments appear as posted. In other words, know with whom you’re messing.
I have to say that the lack of toughness throughout is discouraging. Last year we saw no fight in the defense. This year we see no fight in the offense. The defense has improved, but how can you compare? I am still puzzled by the decision to stick with Ford after the competition seemed to clearly be between Millard and Trickett. I really feel Trickett, even with his lack of experience with the offense, should be given some time. What’s sad is that all three put together probably still do not add up to Geno.
I also think the team takes after it’s coach. Holgs said it himself that he’s not a big “rah rah” kind of guy. I think we can tell. When was the last game we came out looking excited and dominating? We have yet to do so this year, which is sad against the competition we have faced and won against. I wish T.E.A.M. really stood for something, but it’s just words if there are no actions.
There were also coaching changes in the off-season, but there was a spring and fall with these coaches.
Question of the week: Are we where Maryland was this time last year? And is there hope for next year?
I don’t want to give up on this year, but seeing how little improvement we’ve seen within the seasons, along with the downward trend since the Texas game last year, I can’t be hopeful. Ever since the departure of that core group of Rod/Stew players who knew what WVU was supposed to be, the identity has been lost. If you look at this on a graph, it’s not promising. We are on the downside of the bell curve. Not sure we’ve hit the bottom yet.
We have to question whether these guys know what they’re doing in their current high-paid positions. WVU fans will not pay to see this crap, not at $55/$60 a pop. They won’t subscribe to internet broadcasts either.
How much is the buyout? It won’t be this year, but the questions do have to start ramping up. Why was Holgs brought to Motown…remember that? “To win championships!”
Wonderful work. Nobody makes comedic chicken salad out of chicken [that] like WVU fans. One humble request – next presser please ask Dana “talk about the replay challenge process and how you manage to [foul] it up so consistently.” All joking aside that’s a big problem – you can’t be wrong EVERY time you decide to challenge/not challenge a call. The chatter on Twitter was “you were made when he callenged last week and now you’re mad that he didn’t” but I think the point is we’re mad that he’s so consistently wrong on something 120 some other coaches seem to be able to figure out.
I asked that after the Oklahoma game. It’s really not a terribly complicated or compelling answer. They don’t have a Replay Guy, but they get all sorts of looks at the replay from the coaches in the box to the video board in the stadium. There is no process and there are no protocols. Maybe there ought to be?
from the Dominion Post classifieds…”FOR SALE… air raid siren. only used for
one year…best offer accepted…may be inspected this Saturday–it won’t be in
Is it bad that I had to consider if that was true? I’m still not sure if it is.
With a team in transition, I could understand a close loss to an improving team like Maryland in a rivalry game. The law of averages dictated that a loss to the Terps was going to happen sooner or later.
But losing like that is unacceptable. Completely unacceptable. This was supposed to be a season where despite a mediocre win-loss record, this team would be competitive and wouldn’t be caught up in blow-out losses to the extent it was last season. At this juncture, 1/3 of the season in, there are several signs that the 2013 Mountaineers have fatal flaws on par with those of the 2012 edition of the program. That’s problematic.
It’s on everyone at this point. Luck, Holgorsen, the coaching staff, the players. Everyone is culpable in this. I’m not about to suggest firing coaches mid-season because that seldom works out and usually creates further unnecessary turmoil. What I am going to suggest is that the heat on Dana’s seat is officially turned on. I gave him a pass on last season and was willing to do so again this season so long as the above criteria were met (competitive, improving team).
Currently, the criteria are not being met. While the defense has improved, the offense has fallen off the face of the earth and special teams continue to make mistakes. The biggest culprit – and it carries over from last season – is the offensive line. I’m aware of the coaching and personnel changes and realize that it takes time to form cohesion on that front, but the product right now isn’t worthy of BCS calibre football.
It’s on everyone to make it better, players and coaches alike. Whatever the problem is, fix it. Unfortunately, I’m with Casazza: I see it getting worse. If this continues to the end of the season, all bets should be off regarding Holgorsen’s future. They have to be.
A lot of these comments don’t need comment from me. This would be one of those, except that I just commented on it.
My favorite part of the fan base are those that come out when RichRod, for instance, leaves WVU for Michigan and people say,”At Michigan, he has to win all the time. Here, we’re content to be ‘just ok’ and we will name him the governor!” My guess is that those are the same people that take to Twitter like Rick said.
I see a lot of criticisms of Dana on this blog – the self-proclaimed smartest WVU fans on the Internet- that start with “This was supposed to be the year where WVU was x, but this is completely unacceptable.” My favorite part of those remarks is that each commenter inserts his own personal opinion as to what the expectation was supposed to be for the season. On to of that, I think that Casazza posted the depth chart before the first game and the consensus was, “Gonna be a long year.” Thus, the expectations that are posted today are probably different than what the same people were saying a month ago.
It’s a long season. In 2003, RichRod got his ass handed to him by Maryland at home. The sip then got righted and WVU was co-Big East champs. It concluded with another curb stomping at the hands of. Maryland, but that’s beside the point.
OK, so I said this was a weird week. I got more texts and email this week than any other week since the coaching change. I got phone calls at all hours of the day. I mean, all hours. Before 7 a.m. After midnight. When are you going to run Holgorsen out of town like you ran Stewart out of town? My wife loves these calls. I said this before the beginning of the season. I’ll say it again now: I’m evaluating this season under the assumption it’s going to be pretty hard for the Mountaineers to be pretty good. A 37-0 loss is below that expectation. It shouldn’t happen, and I shouldn’t have to tell you that. But a 2-2 record is probably right around that expectation. Sorry.
I expected the fanbase to have a meltdown with what went down on Saturday and thought back to the conversation we had in this blog about what year it actually was in Dana’s tenure at WVU. If I remember correctly, most thought it was year 1.5 or 2, meaning the biggest strides are supposed to come next year and that we expected growing pains this year.
I think most of us never anticipated Dana’s offense would look so completely overwhelmed. I think a lot of us thought we would lose several 35-25 games and maybe get truly blown out once or twice by the Big 12 elite. Or at least that’s what I expected.
We’ve seen young teams stink it up early in the season and start to get better in the latter half, but with the next 3 games that loom I just wonder where everyone will be mentally by the time we roll into the 2nd half of the season.
The 37-0 part induces shock. It’s going to exaggerate reactions. It’s an ugly loss that can’t be excused, but it can’t overwhelm logic and reactionary thinking. Couple that score with the performance of the offense thus far and you can understand how and why people don’t know quite how to react. But the really bad news is these next two games will require an offense that’s not merely up to the task, but better than the task.
The 25314 said:
Things haven’t looked this bad since we started 2003 1-3.
That year, we played competitively against ranked Wisconsin at home. Blew out a bad ECU team on the road, lost at home to a bad Cincinnati team, and then got obliterated in College Park. We then faced #2 Miami, winners of 36 straight regular season games, in Miami.
It was year 3 of The Product, and everyone was questioning his reputation as offensive genius and fitness as head coach. However, Rodriguez was able to rally his troops in the face of adversity and the rest was history. Only a miracle 4th and 13 conversion prevented a WVU win. WVU then went 45-8 in its next 53 regular season games.
Here we are in Holgorsen’s 3rd year, the offense and special teams having looked bad in all four games. We are coming off an evisceration at the hands of MD (although I don’t think this year’s MD team is as good as the ’03 team), and about to face a juggernaut in #11 OK St.
Almost identical situations. I don’t think Holgorsen has instilled toughness or is able to motivate the team to rally like Rodriguez did in 2003, but we will find out.
Am I wrong to believe that the premier concern among the fans is the toughness/resiliency of a Holgorsen team? He hasn’t admitted it, but based on his quotes, that seems to be his, too.
Our embarrassing losses under Dana(SU, TTU, KSU, SU, MD) have come when the opposition have made us one-dimensional. Dana takes what the defense gives him but he’s screwed when they take the pass and the run away……most coaches would be so they develop a run game that they can count on when teams drop 6 into coverage.
Our primary problem on offense last season was lack of a running game and it’s still our primary problem. Get a running game and this team can compete. If he can’t develop a basic running game, we’ll need to find someone who can.
While I agree that Dana has much to learn about game management, I’m afraid we lost this one before we loaded the bus in Morgantown……you don’t lose 37-0 to an average team unless your week of preparation was terrible.
I guess the run is the lesser of two evils at present. I wasn’t as concerned about the running game until last week. That was pretty weak and that was another opponent that kind of targeted the interior. WVU’s response? Move Quinton Spain to left guard and maybe get Adam Pankey a little burn this week.
The 25314 said:
Yes, the Big 12 is better than the Big East. But Holgorsen was blown out by Syracuse and Maryland. Those aren’t Big 12 schools. He was blown out by Texas Tech. He barely defeated Iowa St. We looked bad to very bad against two D-1AA schools. It’s not as if the meat grinder of the Big 12 is to blame for the sorry state of affairs. We wouldn’t be good in any league over the previous 12 games.
We lack speed and playmakers. Holgorsen simply hasn’t recruited any difference makers on offense. That’s on him. As I’ve said before, I don’t think we recruit well enough to run man blocking schemes with the O-Line.
Stew was never blown out like Holgorsen has been repeatedly. But Stew also never blew opponents out, like Holgorsen has a number of times. Holgorsen still has the higher ceiling. Unfortunately, he also has the lower floor. But I think we knew that going in.
And at the risk of sounding callous, even if Luck hadn’t fired Stewart, Luck would have had to find a new coach in May 2012, so wondering how Stew would be doing if he hadn’t been fired, isn’t grounded in reality.
Eleven losses, seven by 21 points or more, 30 games. That’s not good. That’s one of those things that forces you to look at the day-to-day aspect of things because something isn’t right. As noted, those aren’t all Big 12 games, either, so, no, that explanation doesn’t cover everything. The recruiting gripe is legitimate, too. Zone blockers and man blockers are two different beings. You almost have to grow into man blocking. What’s a surprise to me is the situation at the skill positions. Wasn’t Gibson supposed to be the best player in the class? Why has Shorts vanished in two games? Is Alford as good as advertised? I don’t think people expected that, but maybe our expectations were skewed by who he inherited.
You touched briefly on a point that gives me the most concern about Holgorsen, and in his defense it’s something he brings up repeatedly – energy. If I had to point to a common theme over this dismal stretch of football since Texas, it’s that WVU consistently comes out the second most excited team on the field. Call me naive, but I think that type of thing matters. I’ve seen way too many games where the tone is set early by a team making a big play and the rest of the game is defined by how teams react to that. What’s really ironic about all this is the Texas game featured the “jump around” moment that was one of the more memorable WVU “energy” moments in recent years. So that team went frombeing able to embrace the collective chaos of 100K+ screaming fans to one that can’t even summon the emotion to match the intensity of the William and Mary Tribe. Or maybe they were always frontrunners and just masked it really well until Texas Tech kicked them in the face a couple times. Maybe they’re still frontrunners stuck in the back.
Compare that to Rod. Having talked to people who played for him, he was a master motivator. I could count on one time when I saw his teams come out lacking intensity. Can’t remember the exact passage in your book, but you mentioned something like “for all his faults, he could get people to believe.” That’s not a common trait.
To (finally) come to my point, I think that’s a unique skillset that any successful head coach has to have and is a vast difference between head coach and coordinator. What’s scary is I think Dana knows that. What’s perhaps even scarier is he may be realizing that he can’t fix it. That’s a difficult problem to solve – maybe one that can’t be solved.
Another one of those that doesn’t need a comment … but will nevertheless feature a comment. A year ago, WVU rubbed opponents the wrong way with its behavior. This team is the utter and complete opposite and it’s rubbing people wrong. I wonder if Dana was conditioned to expect something from the Mountaineers and wasn’t prepared for the dropoff.
I think at least one poster above and elsewhere on Mike’s blog are guilty of employing syllogisms in their defense of Oliver Luck.
It usually goes like this: if Oliver Luck didn’t become AD then we wouldn’t have joined the Big 12 and would have been marooned in the Big East or its successors.
20/20 hindsight firmly established.
It is an absurd hypothetical to claim that, without Luck, events X, Y and Z would occur while events A, B and C would not. It may be accurate to say that membership in the ACC or SEC was always a long shot but it does not mean it was categorically impossible given the right circumstances and timing. In support of this claim I give you UMD and Rutgers, now members of the Big Ten. For the sake of consistency, it also doesn’t mean that winding up in the Big East/AAC or something worse wasn’t a possibility, nor does it mean that without Luck joining the Big 12 was a categorical impossibility.
It also doesn’t mean that a different individual with different contacts, allegiances or outlook would not have taken a different course of action and/or produced a different outcome. One wonders what might have been with a Mike Slive crony installed as WVU AD, however utilitarian, transient and cynical that ploy might be.
As for the realities of today: the coach, love him or loathe him, will not be sacked this year, period. The AD’s ego won’t allow it. That’s not a criticism, just a fact. The incentive model is the best predictor of behavior and the AD has much more incentive to protect his reputation and future viability within and without the university/athletic department by retaining his high-profile hire. It would also scuttle this season in terms of results, attendance and would probably further depress 2014 season ticket subscriptions. NFL teams can change horses mid-season, albeit grudgingly, because of the league’s year-round continuity. College football is still tied to the cycles of the school year and to start over with a head coach really means going a lap down versus the competition.
College football has become a strange land where even fans of historically moribund programs are expecting, even demanding double-digit win totals after a fleeting flush of success. Take away everyone’s early-season cupcakes and a simple binary question remains: if all these teams win 8 or 9 games against big-time opponents, who will lose those 8 or 9 games? It’s WVU’s turn to be Mac, the skinny victim of bullies on the beach. Will they return as Charles Atlas? And if so is Dana Holgorsen the man to lead them back?
Excellent. From syllogisms to Charles Atlas.
Maybe I’m just crazy, but to me this was an amazing press conference. I have little confidence right now that it translates into anything (certainly not Saturday, though I’m hopeful for later this year), but that was maybe the most honest press conference I’ve ever seen.
Amazing. Unusual. Six. Half a dozen. But he’s been great to deal with after losses this season. It’s not always like that. I did think he looked a little, I don’t know, restless. Rankled, even. Maybe now we know why. Quite a secret he was keeping — and Dana, almost invariably, brings up injuries on his own so he doesn’t have to answer questions about it.
I thought, while Mickey’s tone was a little gruff, his question was fair and relevant. I’d like to know the answer to that question myself.
Mike, do you have any insight as to why the Trickett project has been shelved even when Childress struggling? I’m getting the feeling that Trickett is in the doghouse for some reason or another.
Question was fair in that it was innocuous. Was it relevant? I don’t know. What answer are you going to get other than the one you got? Different words might be used, but the answer to why he wasn’t playing was going to be, in essence, “He’s not as good as the starter.” Maybe that has to be asked. Fine. But asking why he was brought in was without use.
Mickey’s question would be better if it was asked as follows:
Is Trickett not playing because he isn’t good enough or is it for another reason?
“Why did you accept him?” is a question that would be a decent question if I was sitting win Dana at a bar, but the answer is clearly “We thought he might be good enough to start but we were wrong.” Hell, without him, we go into the season with two quarterbacks… so, if nothing else, from a numbers standpoint it helps to have Trickett.
But what could Mickey have hoped the answer would be? Trickett is the best we have but I like keeping the best players on the bench so we can get our butts kicked.
Trickett took six snaps and looked terrible in those six snaps. We can argue as to whether that’s fair or not, but if he was lighting it up in practice I’m sure he would’ve gotten more game time. Like it or not, we’ve seen our three quarterbacks so if you think there’s a savior on the bench, you’re dreaming.
And I don’t have a problem with him saying that he watches the guys (the QB’s) everyday and that Mickey doesn’t. It works for me.
Further, I was honestly impressed with the questions from the press and the way they were askec.
Further still …. I’m glad he wore black.
I didn’t think all of those were easy questions, either.
oklahoma mountaineer said:
Maybe it’s me, but I don’t care for the tone he uses on every question here…..understand that no one likes to be second-guessed but this guy acts like he’s above answering questions from anyone that aren’t complimentary in nature.
I don’t have as much of a problem with his answer to Mickey as I do with his answer to the question regarding emotion (believe it was Dave Hickman)…..”we practice these things like how they encourage each other”
I know that there’s not a real answer to that, but a sarcastic comment on something that I’ve heard even on here is a legit question to ask.
I don’t want to be That Guy … but being around this regularly, I can tell you Dave and Dana have a good enough rapport that Dave can ask questions the way he does and Dana doesn’t flinch because Dana knows that’s just how Dave is. I can tell you we knew Mickey was going to go after Dana and probably about Trickett. For some reason, Dana seems to smirk or smile during the questions I ask, like he’s thinking, “Where’s the four-syllable word? Where’s the four-syllable word?” He handles direct and difficult questions, more often than not, with understanding. But then again, it’s not asking a coach a lot to answer questions that have to be asked.
Other possible answers to “Why don’t you play Player X?”
> I lost all respect for him when he revealed his love for the Twilight saga.
> The *idea* of him starting is so much more appealing than the *reality* of him starting.
> Players play. Chill bros chill.
> If you knew what the tarot cards said, you wouldn’t question me.
> To be honest, it’s my crippling jealousy of his great head of hair.
> Never heard of the guy. Next question.
> He was injured in a tragic fusilli
Hence “There are no stupid questions.”
Mickey Furfari wants to know why Bryan Shaw didn’t come in for the 9th instead of Perez.
You’ll have to be more specific: What time? I can’t watch this weekend unfold. I can’t. Perez tried so very hard to give one up again last night. And he just doesn’t care. That’s what bothers me. I can live with blown saves or just being terrible at your job, but he seems so ZFG about it and so unwilling to understand why people dislike him. I mean, the guy had weed sent to his house. Well, to his dog at his house. And he’s suddenly forgotten how to
close games pitch. And he’s still getting the ball?
Did anyone who saw Trickett play at Florida State actually think he was capable of leading a BCS-caliber football team?
Honestly, take his stats and his experience and make him a transfer from Wake Forest and he’s not getting this hype. I have nothing against Trickett, but let’s be real for a moment. People are throwing around this “He’s good enough for Florida State, but he’s not good enough for Dana?” card like it matters. His dad was a coach at Florida State. He was an above average player in limited action. He’s coming to a new school, without the benefit of spring football, and he’s supposed to take the starting job and run with it? Because of Florida State? Let’s ease up just a little, and maybe for his own good.
The 25314 said:
Did anyone who saw Childress play at WVU actually think he was capable of leading a BCS-caliber football team?
The 25314 said:
Did anyone who saw Millard play at WVU actually think he was capable of leading a BCS-caliber football team?
Mike, if the 2013 WVU football team were Friday Night Lights, would Matt Saracen be Clint Trickett or Paul Millard? I think we can agree that Ford Childress is JD McCoy. Though, in a perfect world, Trickett (McCoy) would’ve taken over the job and played badly only to be saved by Millard (Saracen).
Rick Trickett is JD McCoy’s dad.
Amanda Mazey is Mrs. Taylor.
Joe DeForest is Buddy Garrity. Unfortunately, on the show, Garrity wasn’t on the coaching staff.
Korey Harris is Landry/Tyra.
This week, Holgorsen is going to bring Ford Childress to the football field after hours and Childress will shout “I’m QB1!”
Unfortunately, this entire season is Season 2. Hopefully, the football gods will go on strike and this season will end abruptly sort of like the television writers did.
We have to revisit this because the deck was shuffled this week and this comment came before last night’s news, but isn’t Trickett Voodoo?
pknocker 40 said:
This is so stupid but Dana’s kind of having a Wizard of Oz season so far:
He’s Dorothy I guess
Dreamius is obviously Toto (Toto couldn’t really protect anyone either)
Trickett is the Scarecrow (no brain – he failed a class and missed spring practice. I know he was taking a heavy course load but still)
Ford is the Tin Man (chest injury – no heart)
Millard is the Cowardly Lion (probably not fair but he looked shook in Norman)
Opposing defenses are the flying monkeys
Mickey Furfari is the Wicked Witch of the West (5:30 press conferences! I’m melllllting!)
Dana’s tiny fingers are the munchkins
But who’s the man behind the curtain? Casazza? Luck? Hertzel? Landon? This is so stupid
I’ll hang up and listen.
My buddy and I will be in attendence on Saturday. We’ve been saying back and forth to each other all week that we will be witnessing history. When he first said it, I asked if that history would be good or bad. His response: “Not sure…..I think A) The boys battle it out and win in a brutal game, kick starting the season, B) Lose by a hair in a well played game and life goes back to normal, or C) Get blown out and forms the snowball both for the season and his legacy.” My response was that B would be in no way historic and he responded by saying “OK, it’s like the Cuban Middile Crisis….nothing happened but it was historic.”
My question is, will this weekend be like the Cuban Missle Crisis?
Or maybe the Obama-Rouhani Handshake. Nothing happens, but it gives us plenty to discuss.
“What he should have done was …”
“You have to be better than that.”
“I’m concerned by the lack of progress in this relationship.”
“We need to recruit better enemies.”
“That never would have happened back when the other guy was in charge.”
“It’s just a damn handshake!”
Down South said:
Between Friday Night Lights, the Wizard of Oz and, now, the Cuban Missile Crisis, I’m having trouble keeping up with who each player or coach is in the corresponding story. Holgs as Jack Kennedy. Mike as the Defense Intelligence Agency. Patterson as Robert McNamara. Gundy as Kruschev. Mickey as Fidel Castro. I haven’t been writing any of this down. I need a cheat sheet. Something laminated.
You ain’t seen nothing yet …
Clint Trickett is going to light it up. We run the Cowboys out of town. Momentum gathers and we kick butt the rest of the year in the Big 12. We’ll put on our WV gear and people, especially outside of WV, will walk up to us and want to shake our hand. They’ll pat us on the back and tell us how wonderful we are because we are Mountaineers. We’ll feel validated as human beings. People all over the state will be rejoicing.
The President of the US will designate a special national WV Fan Day because the nation is so blessed to have these phenomenal WV fans amongst all the other run of the mill fans. The economy in WV will then turn upward. Even more rejoicing will occur. Various media types will cover this socio-economic miracle. The Age of Aquarius will dawn in WV. And all of us WV/WVU types will be preeminently fulfilled and finally validated as the people we always knew we were.
Or maybe not.
Or maybe. Or maybe.
“Age of Aquarius,” is from the film Hair, which means:
Clint Trickett as Claude Hooper Bukowski
Dana Holgorsen as George Berger
Shannon Dawson as Sheila Franklin
Pat Eger as Jeannie Ryan
Charles Simms as LaFayette “Hud” Johnson
Ron Crook as Woof Daschund
Wendell SMallwood as Central Park singer (“Ain’t Got No” & “White Boys”)
Andruw Buie as Hud’s fiancée
Cody Clay as Fenton
Jordan Thompson as Black Boys
Sticks as Lady in Pink
Dreamius Smith as Black Boys
Oliver Luck as The General
Quinton Spain as Woodrow Sheldon
Claude Hooper Bukowski, a farm boy, heads to New York City to enter the Army and serve in the Vietnam War. In Central Park, he meets a troupe of free-spirited hippies led by George Berger, a young man who introduces him to debutante Sheila Franklin when they crash a dinner party at her home. Inevitably, Claude is sent off to recruit training in Nevada, but Berger and his band of merry pranksters including Woof Daschund, LaFayette “Hud” Johnson, and pregnant Jeannie Ryan follow him. Sheila flirts with an off-duty Sergeant in order to steal his uniform, which she gives to Berger. He uses it to extract Claude from the base for a last meeting with Sheila, taking his place, but while Claude is away, the unit flies out to Vietnam, taking Berger with them. The film ends with the main cast singing at Berger’s grave, followed by scenes of a large anti-war protest outside the White House in Washington, DC.
Substitute OSU game parallels as you wish!
I dare you. I really dare you.
Here’s a thought: What if Trickett plays great, albeit in a close loss (maybe one where timeouts and special teams gaffes helped provide the margin of defeat) — has Dana set up a scenario where he actually looks worse if his quarterback plays well, given that on *Tuesday* Dana gruffly said Trickett wasn’t starting because he’s seen what he’s capable of in practice and was not impressed?
What a weird season.
Weird week, I’m telling you.
Here is my prediction for this weekend. First, we all know (or have a very good feeling) right at this very moment that West Virginia is going to get destroyed in this game. It won’t be close and it won’t be pretty. The offense will probably look absolutely abysmal and be lucky to score any points.
However, with the above assumed, people will still text/tweet/comment about how “this team isn’t getting any better,” “the coaching is horrible,” “I’ve never been so embarrassed as a WVU fan,” and there will probably even be some mentioning that WVU should bench its quarterback even though, at this point, we will have seen all three and seen enough of all three.
(The above is not to say we’re all idiots. . . it’s just the way it will happen. I think the internet works for venting such matters, so I don’t think it’s a problem).
Then, on Sunday, the sun will come up and a new day will start. WVU will win another football game in the near future. It will probably even win a Big 12 championship some day. The stadium will always draw north of 50,000 except for on rare occasions, the gameday atmosphere will always be great, and West Virginians will always congregate to watch the Mountaineers.
Enjoy the weekend!