Fan Nation
Forums
Forum list
Search forums
Rules & Policies
Podcast
Mobile App
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Shop
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
FWST: A Q&A With the Bengals Next Starting QB Whose Number Should be Retired By TCU
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Limey Frog" data-source="post: 828742" data-attributes="member: 16969"><p>I'm really not in favor of college programs retiring numbers in all but the rarest of exceptional cases. Even with all 99 numbers available you still have to double up for the walk-ons. You don't have to retire too many before a lot of guys getting playing time are going to be doubling up. Not that it's too hard to keep track of which guy is on defense and which on offense, but players really like to have ownership of a number. It would be weird to see a #43 running around on offense, or a #34 on defense.</p><p></p><p>Also, I'm not crazy about this new trend of honoring players immediately. I'm glad TCU hasn't jumped on that bandwagon and I hope we don't start. Texas retiring Colt McCoy and Vince Young's numbers already was embarrassing. There's still plenty of time for one of those guys to murder their wives or something. I'd rather not have to quietly un-retire #14 a few years from now. Sure, hold it out of circulation and only offer it to QBs who earn/want it. But don't declare it retired until Andy Dalton starts laying his hands on people and curing their diseases.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Limey Frog, post: 828742, member: 16969"] I'm really not in favor of college programs retiring numbers in all but the rarest of exceptional cases. Even with all 99 numbers available you still have to double up for the walk-ons. You don't have to retire too many before a lot of guys getting playing time are going to be doubling up. Not that it's too hard to keep track of which guy is on defense and which on offense, but players really like to have ownership of a number. It would be weird to see a #43 running around on offense, or a #34 on defense. Also, I'm not crazy about this new trend of honoring players immediately. I'm glad TCU hasn't jumped on that bandwagon and I hope we don't start. Texas retiring Colt McCoy and Vince Young's numbers already was embarrassing. There's still plenty of time for one of those guys to murder their wives or something. I'd rather not have to quietly un-retire #14 a few years from now. Sure, hold it out of circulation and only offer it to QBs who earn/want it. But don't declare it retired until Andy Dalton starts laying his hands on people and curing their diseases. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Which team did TCU defeat in the College Football Playoffs?
Post reply
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
FWST: A Q&A With the Bengals Next Starting QB Whose Number Should be Retired By TCU
Top