The top video here http://mgovideo.com/ (http://mgovideo.com/) is a kind of interesting video of a Michigan spring practice line drill. It doesn't say anything about Michigan per se, but I thought it was interesting for two reasons:
(1) You never saw stuff like this out of Fort Schembechler under Carr or Roderiguez (even Tressel was more open with practice than those guys, and he wasn't exactly a poster child for media access), and
(2) I always think it is interesting to see what the guys in the trenches really have to go through. That's not where the glory is, but that's where games are won and lost. Note that Michigan's head coach, offensive coordinator, and defensive coordinator all have line position coaching duties. Hoke takes that shit seriously.
Unfortunately for Michigan fans, Jake Ryan (known throughout the MGoBlogiverse for two years now as "JMFR" with the MF not actually being his initials) is out indefinitely with a torn ACL. He's probably gone for the year, and marks the third year in a row Michigan has lost their best defensive player for the season. Last year he had 105 tackles, 14.5 TFL, and 4.5 sacks.
That almost exactly counterbalances the return of Taylor Lewan (All-American tackle and sure first round pick) for his senior season. With both guys unhurt, I'd have to say Michigan was the favorite for the conference title this year. Without JMFR to spark the defense, I'm not so sure.
Well, Arizona has a 5* recruit on their football team. Sort of.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9155423/ex-notre-dame-fighting-irish-returner-davonte-neal-transfer-arizona
I don't know what to think about this.
For one, the way his recruitment and announcement went, he strikes me as a potential mess to have in the locker room - one of those prima-donna types.
For another, what is Arizona gonna do with a 5* recruit anyway? We don't even get 4* recruits. RR is going to have to talk to Miller about how to handle such a strange creature.
On the other hand, our offense is freaking loaded...except at QB.
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2013, 09:28:58 AM
For one, the way his recruitment and announcement went, he strikes me as a potential mess to have in the locker room - one of those prima-donna types.
He gave up a Notre Dame playing career to be a better father to his kid. That's not really prima-donna-ish. Good luck to the kid. I hope he and 'Zona do well, except when playing Michigan.
This is a make-or-break year for Mack Brown's rebuilding effort. I sure hope it goes well, after enduring the horrible shape of UT's basketball and baseball teams I could use some good news for awhile. Maybe UT will get within 20 of OU this year, that would be cool.
I'm sort of at a point with NCAA football like I was with MLB right after the strike, so disgusted with the culture that I've lost a lot of interest in the game. For me it's been gradually building since Auburn bought a national championship in one of the most blatant examples ever of the corruption in college sports, and has just built every year since as the most corrupt conference in college athletics has won championship after championship.
I think the near-slave labor aspect for the players combined with the professional coaches has really made for a lot of ugliness. I won't go into a long rant about it, but I just find college sports disgusting. Everyone knows it's always been dirty, but knowing is different from having your nose rubbed in it on a regular basis. I almost wish we could pass some rule changes where college have the right to hire essentially "minor league" professional football teams to "represent the university." So instead of the Crimson Tide or the Nittany Lions being such a charade we can just admit we're talking about professional athletes in the developmental league of the NFL.
The Daily Show did a great kick-in-the-nuts piece on the NCAA last night, should check it out.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 08:46:02 AM
I almost wish we could pass some rule changes where college have the right to hire essentially "minor league" professional football teams to "represent the university." So instead of the Crimson Tide or the Nittany Lions being such a charade we can just admit we're talking about professional athletes in the developmental league of the NFL.
Yeah that is what I have been thinking about as well. It also removes the absurdity of some of these athletes getting admitted to major universities when they are barely literate.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2013, 02:42:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2013, 09:28:58 AM
For one, the way his recruitment and announcement went, he strikes me as a potential mess to have in the locker room - one of those prima-donna types.
He gave up a Notre Dame playing career to be a better father to his kid. That's not really prima-donna-ish. Good luck to the kid. I hope he and 'Zona do well, except when playing Michigan.
I hope you are right. I really, really hope you are right.
If that is the reason, then that is great, and I think he will do well at Arizona.
If he was just not happy at Notre Dame because they didn't kiss his ass enough or something...
I guess after his recruiting fiasco I am innately skeptical. I hope I am wrong, of course.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 08:46:02 AM
I'm sort of at a point with NCAA football like I was with MLB right after the strike, so disgusted with the culture that I've lost a lot of interest in the game. For me it's been gradually building since Auburn bought a national championship in one of the most blatant examples ever of the corruption in college sports, and has just built every year since as the most corrupt conference in college athletics has won championship after championship.
I think the near-slave labor aspect for the players combined with the professional coaches has really made for a lot of ugliness. I won't go into a long rant about it, but I just find college sports disgusting. Everyone knows it's always been dirty, but knowing is different from having your nose rubbed in it on a regular basis. I almost wish we could pass some rule changes where college have the right to hire essentially "minor league" professional football teams to "represent the university." So instead of the Crimson Tide or the Nittany Lions being such a charade we can just admit we're talking about professional athletes in the developmental league of the NFL.
I get what you are saying, but a couple points:
1. Don't lump everyone in together. There are some corrupt programs, and certainly the SEC has "figured out" the meta game to a level that kind of sucks for college football as a whole. But most programs are doing the right thing as best they can.
2. The problem with all the proposals to "quit pretending college athletes are amateurs" is that if you did so, college athletics would lose the appeal that is actually has - perhaps you can argue that that appeal is based on a false perception, but that doesn't really matter. I would not care one bit about following the Arizona O'Reilly Wildcats Minor League football team. That ideal that my schools team is made up of a bunch of students who go to the school just like I did may be a bunch of bullshit, but so what? It still matters - college athletics are about emotions, not reason.
3. While there are certianly plenty of examples of college athletes who it is pretty hard to pretend like they are actual students, there are many, many, MANY who it is not hard at all, even at the highest levels. The one and done 5* basketball players are out there, but so are the great college athletes who play four years, get a degree, and are actually around on campus. I played basketball at the rec center at Arizona against Mike Bibby and Miles Simon. Guys like Solomon Hill or Kevin Parrom are what college sports are about, and they are not the exception. There are more of them than there are of the prima donna one and done guys who you cannot possibly imagine are actual students - not to mention the run of the mill athletes that make up most teams,even at the highest levels (outside the SEC) who will never ever play a day in the NFL, and they know it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 08:46:02 AM
I think the near-slave labor aspect for the players combined with the professional coaches has really made for a lot of ugliness.
I've always enjoyed this whine. A "slave labor" system that people are desperate to join? Sounds more like bullshit rhetoric to me.
QuoteI almost wish we could pass some rule changes where college have the right to hire essentially "minor league" professional football teams to "represent the university."So instead of the Crimson Tide or the Nittany Lions being such a charade we can just admit we're talking about professional athletes in the developmental league of the NFL.
I don't see any benefit to such a rules change. If college athletes "make the university millions," as is so often claimed, then why hasn't anyone founded a football minor league to make those millions for themselves (and, of course, the players)? The NFL could do that themselves, if there really are millions to be made. I suspect the reason no one has decided to make those millions is because those millions aren't really there; that the popularity of the sport comes from the universities, not just the players.
To many of the players, the game is a sport, not just the path to a profession. Some will never play pro ball, as Berkut points out. Others will play pro ball but know that they will never again get a chance to play for, as Bo Schembechler put it, "the Team, the Team, the Team." See Tayler Lewan, a sure top-ten draft pick who came back for his senior year because he couldn't stand the idea of leaving a college football season unplayed. Others do value the degree, like Denard Robinson, who puts in 16-hour days getting ready for the draft while still attending school, because he is determined that he will be the first one in his family to get a college degree, and he knows that this point in his life is when he can do it.
Sure, there's a lot of corruption in the game. There is in anything where this much money is involved. There is in pro football, and would be in some non-university-affiliated development league (if there are, as claimed, millions in it to be earned by the players). But there are also a lot of upright figures in it as well, just as there are in pro football and would be in this development league. No system is going to be perfect. NCAA football would be a lot more perfect if players got compensated for all their college costs, as pretty much every major program (and the director of the NCAA) want. But what we have is pretty damned good, popular, and supported by the major stakeholders, athletes included. Those who don't like it are welcome to ignore it.
I must admit, I find this thing to be pretty funny, and pretty indicative of how college recruiting punditry relly goes:
April 13, 2013 ESPN:
QuoteDrake Harris (Grand Rapids, Mich./Grand Rapids Christian) wanted to be wowed by Ohio State on his unofficial visit on Friday.
Judging from his texts and tweets, the Buckeyes knocked it out of the park.
April 14, 2113 Drake Harris:
QuoteJust officially committed to The University Of Michigan!
I don't blame Brad Bournival at ESPN; all he can report on is what the recruit says. But drawing conclusions from what 17-year-olds say at any given moment is a mug's game. In the end, following recruiting should only be done as an amusement. Anyone who takes it seriously is going to go crazy.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2013, 10:01:41 AMI get what you are saying, but a couple points:
1. Don't lump everyone in together. There are some corrupt programs, and certainly the SEC has "figured out" the meta game to a level that kind of sucks for college football as a whole. But most programs are doing the right thing as best they can.
I think there are certainly degrees of corruption, and programs that at least seriously try not to be corrupt. But I don't really know that any program in FBS can be said to be uncorrupt completely. When even small time programs like UAB and Troy State feel the need to engage in cheating I find it unlikely any of the majors are totally clean. Big money sports breed a lot of competitiveness and reward winning. College football is big money sports just like most pro sports, except the players can't be paid directly. That creates a situation where you have a talent pool that wants things that schools can give them by skirting the rules. It's not even a moral issue, I don't think there's anything immoral about cheating at college football it's just a really dumb system that perpetuates a myth about the two big money sports being anything but developmental leagues.
Quote2. The problem with all the proposals to "quit pretending college athletes are amateurs" is that if you did so, college athletics would lose the appeal that is actually has - perhaps you can argue that that appeal is based on a false perception, but that doesn't really matter. I would not care one bit about following the Arizona O'Reilly Wildcats Minor League football team. That ideal that my schools team is made up of a bunch of students who go to the school just like I did may be a bunch of bullshit, but so what? It still matters - college athletics are about emotions, not reason.
I love minor league baseball, but your mileage may vary.
Quote3. While there are certianly plenty of examples of college athletes who it is pretty hard to pretend like they are actual students, there are many, many, MANY who it is not hard at all, even at the highest levels. The one and done 5* basketball players are out there, but so are the great college athletes who play four years, get a degree, and are actually around on campus. I played basketball at the rec center at Arizona against Mike Bibby and Miles Simon. Guys like Solomon Hill or Kevin Parrom are what college sports are about, and they are not the exception. There are more of them than there are of the prima donna one and done guys who you cannot possibly imagine are actual students - not to mention the run of the mill athletes that make up most teams,even at the highest levels (outside the SEC) who will never ever play a day in the NFL, and they know it.
In general most football and basketball players are very stupid and would not have gone to the college they're going to if not for sports. A few buck the trend sure, but by and large if not for sports these kids aren't college material, they're truck driver or factory worker material.
I much prefer college baseball to minor league baseball but I am sure glad minor league baseball exists. Everybody who wants to get paid and not get a degree and play for old state U has an option.
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2013, 01:12:51 PMI've always enjoyed this whine. A "slave labor" system that people are desperate to join? Sounds more like bullshit rhetoric to me.
So people can't be desperate to join employment situations akin to slave labor?
QuoteI don't see any benefit to such a rules change. If college athletes "make the university millions," as is so often claimed, then why hasn't anyone founded a football minor league to make those millions for themselves (and, of course, the players)? The NFL could do that themselves, if there really are millions to be made. I suspect the reason no one has decided to make those millions is because those millions aren't really there; that the popularity of the sport comes from the universities, not just the players.
Who is claiming that the players generate millions of dollars in revenue? Collectively yes, football programs generate typically tens of millions of dollars in revenue for an athletic department (at least talking about the BCS-level schools) but I don't think anyone is saying the players would or should earn millions. There are millions made off of minor league baseball, millions isn't that big of a number in the world of professional sports. And I imagine the NFL would have a development league just like minor league baseball if the college system did not exist.
QuoteTo many of the players, the game is a sport, not just the path to a profession. Some will never play pro ball, as Berkut points out. Others will play pro ball but know that they will never again get a chance to play for, as Bo Schembechler put it, "the Team, the Team, the Team." See Tayler Lewan, a sure top-ten draft pick who came back for his senior year because he couldn't stand the idea of leaving a college football season unplayed. Others do value the degree, like Denard Robinson, who puts in 16-hour days getting ready for the draft while still attending school, because he is determined that he will be the first one in his family to get a college degree, and he knows that this point in his life is when he can do it.
Wow, are you from the 1950s? I think Leave it to Beaver is coming on later or maybe you can catch a quick Honeymooners rerun. College kids today are mostly thugs that none of us would want at our dinner table, not this wholesome team-focused do-gooder picture you've painted here.
QuoteSure, there's a lot of corruption in the game. There is in anything where this much money is involved. There is in pro football, and would be in some non-university-affiliated development league (if there are, as claimed, millions in it to be earned by the players). But there are also a lot of upright figures in it as well, just as there are in pro football and would be in this development league. No system is going to be perfect. NCAA football would be a lot more perfect if players got compensated for all their college costs, as pretty much every major program (and the director of the NCAA) want. But what we have is pretty damned good, popular, and supported by the major stakeholders, athletes included. Those who don't like it are welcome to ignore it.
Who is claiming millions to be earned by the players? The way a development league would work is the players would sign with the professional club. The very top prospects might get a very nice signing bonus, in the millions. Most players would not, they would just be offered a spot on the team and could work their way to the professional club where they would probably earn a small amount of money for a few years and then sign for a lot in free agency if they're any good (basically how baseball works.) While in the development league they'd earn about what a minor league baseball player makes, which is damn good money for playing a sport but certainly not millions.
Like minor league teams, the development leagues would be able to make money through concession sales and ticket revenue. They would also, being affiliated with universities, probably do a large trade in merchandise that most minor league teams don't really do (not many people buy Minor League team merchandise.) Some of the development teams, like some minor league teams, would probably operate at a loss and would be subsidized by the parent team.
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2013, 03:23:59 PM
I much prefer college baseball to minor league baseball but I am sure glad minor league baseball exists. Everybody who wants to get paid and not get a degree and play for old state U has an option.
The college world series is fun, I actually played college baseball so I agree that it's a good thing and enjoyable. But in baseball generally the best non-MLB baseball is seen in the minors, and also in my experience minor league ball games are a lot more fun to attend than college ones. Minor league ball games usually have cheap beer whereas many college stadiums don't allow alcohol sales at all, and watching baseball without a beer is like a man whose had his dick cut off trying to fuck.
I've also gotten soured on NCAA because there is so little competitive balance it really makes it uninteresting. The pro sports use a draft system, force revenue sharing and etc that make it very hard for teams to accumulate massive and unbeatable competitive advantages. There's no erasing the fact that schools like Maryland will never make the money, never get the coaches etc that are needed to win. Whereas in pro sports with drafts instead of free for all recruiting while the best teams can accumulate advantages in free agents (limited in some degree in some pro leagues by salary caps) there is a lot more competitive balance. This means in the NFL or MLB there are a lot more "interesting games" in a given season. In college sports a big time school might only face viable opponents that have any expected chance of beating them like 30% of the time. Sometimes less than that, as many major teams in the last few years have made it until bowl season without playing a serious opponent.
That was part of the charm of college football for me at one point, because it created situations where massively advantaged teams could get beat in shocker upsets. But that actually is less exciting when you look at it from the other side, that usually teams are playing vastly inferior competition such that it's shocking when a certain team doesn't win 9-10 games a year.
Yeah but the pros have given up the ability to have lasting dynasties like they did before. It's too hard for them to keep their stars, and players are no longer associated with a team for their whole careers. It makes being a fan less fun when the same pitcher you rooted for last year is now taking the mound against you. If Babe Ruth were playing today, he'd have been passed around to six different teams in free agency by now. You really lose something there.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 14, 2013, 03:43:34 PM
Yeah but the pros have given up the ability to have lasting dynasties like they did before. It's too hard for them to keep their stars, and players are no longer associated with a team for their whole careers. It makes being a fan less fun when the same pitcher you rooted for last year is now taking the mound against you. If Babe Ruth were playing today, he'd have been passed around to six different teams in free agency by now. You really lose something there.
This century has seemed kinder to this than the end of the last one. Teams seem to be building more through the draft these days and holding on to their players...I mean not always but alot more than they used to.
I think that's true in baseball because a lot of teams had basically destroyed their competitive ability by giving up all their drafted players in high dollar trades in which they'd give away half a bullpen of pitchers and such for one 35 year old All Star slugger. The Yankees in particular are a lot more farm oriented these days I think because years of throwing away their only prospects in ill advised trades and filling in the gaps with massive free agent contracts proved to give them very little in return (the 96/98/99/00 teams were heavy with drafted talent, and then all the huge free agents they signed got them very little until 2009.)
But the way the super high payroll teams were headed a lot of them were having to spend so much money filling in gaps in their development channel that for all their extra money they really were not operating at any major advantage to the small market teams.
You think it's the moneyball phenomenon?
It just seems to me that if all the teams are equal, then why the hell should I care who wins? Because I like green better than blue I guess?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 14, 2013, 03:30:39 PM
So people can't be desperate to join employment situations akin to slave labor?
Nope. They'll do so reluctantly, but not enthusiastically.
QuoteWho is claiming that the players generate millions of dollars in revenue? Collectively yes, football programs generate typically tens of millions of dollars in revenue for an athletic department (at least talking about the BCS-level schools) but I don't think anyone is saying the players would or should earn millions. There are millions made off of minor league baseball, millions isn't that big of a number in the world of professional sports. And I imagine the NFL would have a development league just like minor league baseball if the college system did not exist.
College baseball exists, and so does minor league baseball. College hockey exists, and so does minor league hockey. If college football were such a "slave labor" system, there would be alternatives. And who says college football players make millions for their schools?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22football+players%22+%22make+millions+for+their+schools%22
Check out Joe Nycera, or Chris Young, or Tim Dahlberg.
QuoteWow, are you from the 1950s? I think Leave it to Beaver is coming on later or maybe you can catch a quick Honeymooners rerun. College kids today are mostly thugs that none of us would want at our dinner table, not this wholesome team-focused do-gooder picture you've painted here.
:lmfao: Did I wake you up from a nap, Cranky Old Dude? I know a hell of a lot more "college kids today" than you do, and can tell you that your assumptions bout them are full of shit.
[/quote]
QuoteWho is claiming millions to be earned by the players?
Dunno what this even means.
QuoteThe way a development league would work is the players would sign with the professional club. The very top prospects might get a very nice signing bonus, in the millions. Most players would not, they would just be offered a spot on the team and could work their way to the professional club where they would probably earn a small amount of money for a few years and then sign for a lot in free agency if they're any good (basically how baseball works.) While in the development league they'd earn about what a minor league baseball player makes, which is damn good money for playing a sport but certainly not millions.
Thank you Captain Obvious. I am sure no one but you knew how development leagues work! :lol:
QuoteLike minor league teams, the development leagues would be able to make money through concession sales and ticket revenue. They would also, being affiliated with universities, probably do a large trade in merchandise that most minor league teams don't really do (not many people buy Minor League team merchandise.) Some of the development teams, like some minor league teams, would probably operate at a loss and would be subsidized by the parent team.
Why would these leagues be associated with universities? They aren't in baseball or hockey. What university would want to affiliate with a development league when it can have its own team?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 14, 2013, 04:04:03 PM
You think it's the moneyball phenomenon?
It just seems to me that if all the teams are equal, then why the hell should I care who wins? Because I like green better than blue I guess?
Well they're never all equal, obviously. It's just the pro sports make it so there is likelihood over time that all teams will experience some level of success and teams that "never win a championship" are the exception. But no people support pro teams for local reasons, e.g. Philly residents support the Phillies, NoVa/DC people support the skins etc.
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2013, 04:54:55 PMWhy would these leagues be associated with universities? They aren't in baseball or hockey. What university would want to affiliate with a development league when it can have its own team?
There's no reason to let them operate their own teams. Just craft law so that any academic institution that offers students scholarships to attend school based on athletics are no longer eligible for any federal money and none of their students are eligible for any federal loans. They go away overnight.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 14, 2013, 04:04:03 PM
You think it's the moneyball phenomenon?
It just seems to me that if all the teams are equal, then why the hell should I care who wins? Because I like green better than blue I guess?
Unless you know somebody personally on the team why should you ever care who wins? That is the myserious experience of sports fandom...I do not really understand why I care so much for these teams I just do.
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2013, 05:27:23 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 14, 2013, 04:04:03 PM
You think it's the moneyball phenomenon?
It just seems to me that if all the teams are equal, then why the hell should I care who wins? Because I like green better than blue I guess?
Unless you know somebody personally on the team why should you ever care who wins? That is the myserious experience of sports fandom...I do not really understand why I care so much for these teams I just do.
Some of the things that are imbalanced or different are what make it fun. It's fun to hate the Yankees and the Red Sox because they are so rich and powerful. It's fun when Ohio State and Michigan are constantly ruining each others' perfect seasons.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 14, 2013, 05:21:41 PM
There's no reason to let them operate their own teams. Just craft law so that any academic institution that offers students scholarships to attend school based on athletics are no longer eligible for any federal money and none of their students are eligible for any federal loans. They go away overnight.
You haven't explained (other than your own misguided distaste) why Federal law would do such a bizarre thing. There's no reason not to allow them to operate their own teams. It works in hockey, baseball, and other sports.
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2013, 05:27:23 PM
Unless you know somebody personally on the team why should you ever care who wins? That is the myserious experience of sports fandom...I do not really understand why I care so much for these teams I just do.
Well, you did know Duell Petsch.
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2013, 06:45:11 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 14, 2013, 05:21:41 PM
There's no reason to let them operate their own teams. Just craft law so that any academic institution that offers students scholarships to attend school based on athletics are no longer eligible for any federal money and none of their students are eligible for any federal loans. They go away overnight.
You haven't explained (other than your own misguided distaste) why Federal law would do such a bizarre thing. There's no reason not to allow them to operate their own teams. It works in hockey, baseball, and other sports.
Because I don't want them to operate sports teams, at least not like they do now. I like when the law reflects my personal wishes, I don't need any further reason to support legislation.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 14, 2013, 07:42:00 PM
Because I don't want them to operate sports teams, at least not like they do now. I like when the law reflects my personal wishes, I don't need any further reason to support legislation.
No sports teams? Not even intramural? Would you allow students to play team frisbee on school grounds, or at all?
Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2013, 06:10:34 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 14, 2013, 07:42:00 PM
Because I don't want them to operate sports teams, at least not like they do now. I like when the law reflects my personal wishes, I don't need any further reason to support legislation.
No sports teams? Not even intramural? Would you allow students to play team frisbee on school grounds, or at all?
Actually I said, "at least not like they do now." I'd generally be fine with non-scholarship athletic activity of whatever kind and form the school chose.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 15, 2013, 06:34:32 AM
Actually I said, "at least not like they do now." I'd generally be fine with non-scholarship athletic activity of whatever kind and form the school chose.
Actually, "at least not like they do now" is meaningless noise. Tomorrow they will "do it" differently than they do it today. If your argument is for having schools able to pay any amount of cash to players but not give them any scholarships, that's at least a clear stance. It is a silly argument, as gfar as I can see, but at least it is clear.
It would be ironic to see all the eggheads with merit scholarships banned from inter-school chess games, but I guess you think that that is worth it.
Looks like Pitt has locked up the Fulmer Cup in April - an unprecedented feat. 20 bags of heroin!
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/04/26/pitt-football-players-detained-in-drug-bust/ (http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/04/26/pitt-football-players-detained-in-drug-bust/)
In other news that probably no one but Berkut would care about, Michigan has commitments from 6 of the ESPN Top 150 recruits so far (and leads for another 6). The rest of the Big Ten has a total of four such recruits. RichRod had a total of one such recruit in his career at Michigan (Devin Gardner, who I will admit is going to be a great one). So, Berkut, no matter how good or bad the RR years are at 'Zona (and I hope they are good, because I like the guy and think he got fucked big time at Michigan), at least you can look forward to great recruiting after he leaves! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2013, 08:58:58 PM
I like the guy and think he got fucked big time at Michigan
Color me surprised.
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2013, 08:58:58 PM
Looks like Pitt has locked up the Fulmer Cup in April - an unprecedented feat. 20 bags of heroin!
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/04/26/pitt-football-players-detained-in-drug-bust/ (http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/04/26/pitt-football-players-detained-in-drug-bust/)
Damn, and I thought Bama had a good start with 16 points already. I wonder if they'll get the 10 point crime ring bonus to go along with all the felonies.
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2013, 08:58:58 PM
Looks like Pitt has locked up the Fulmer Cup in April - an unprecedented feat. 20 bags of heroin!
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/04/26/pitt-football-players-detained-in-drug-bust/ (http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/04/26/pitt-football-players-detained-in-drug-bust/)
In other news that probably no one but Berkut would care about, Michigan has commitments from 6 of the ESPN Top 150 recruits so far (and leads for another 6). The rest of the Big Ten has a total of four such recruits. RichRod had a total of one such recruit in his career at Michigan (Devin Gardner, who I will admit is going to be a great one). So, Berkut, no matter how good or bad the RR years are at 'Zona (and I hope they are good, because I like the guy and think he got fucked big time at Michigan), at least you can look forward to great recruiting after he leaves! :lol:
Well, Rich Rod is Rich Rod - he has a "system" and he recruits to that system, and that means he is likely never to really going after a quantity of the ESPN150 guys.
Which should work out well at Arizona, since those guys never give us a second look anyway!
What is fun it to go the Arizona hoops board, read some recruiting threads, where of course if you are not a top100 HS prospect, Arizona isn't even going to consider you, and seeing the fans going on and on about how amazing the next top-10 phenom is going to be, then going over to the football recruiting board ON THE SAME FORUM and listen to people talk about how star rankings and recruit ratings don't matter anyway, so no worries that Arizona is never getting a 5-star recruit to visit...
I do love cognitive dissonance.
Wyoming beat Wyoming in the spring practice game. Undefeated in 2013!
Quote from: PDH on April 28, 2013, 08:49:50 PM
Wyoming beat Wyoming in the spring practice game. Undefeated in 2013!
:lol:
It's all I have
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2013, 08:34:46 PM
Well, Rich Rod is Rich Rod - he has a "system" and he recruits to that system, and that means he is likely never to really going after a quantity of the ESPN150 guys.
I think he has one coming in 2014. I don't remember the name, but he's an AZ wide receiver Michigan wanted but who has told the M coaching staff that he doesn't plan to go far from home.
QuoteWhat is fun it to go the Arizona hoops board, read some recruiting threads, where of course if you are not a top100 HS prospect, Arizona isn't even going to consider you, and seeing the fans going on and on about how amazing the next top-10 phenom is going to be, then going over to the football recruiting board ON THE SAME FORUM and listen to people talk about how star rankings and recruit ratings don't matter anyway, so no worries that Arizona is never getting a 5-star recruit to visit...
You see the same thing on the Michigan State boards. But that's the way I like it, in the case of the Spartans, because Izzo is a guy I can respect, and Dantonio is just a douchebag.
Time to laugh at Notre Dame again. This time over Charlie Weis (again).
Turns out that as an ex-coach he is still being paid more than the current coach: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-notre-dame-football-weis-kelly-20130523,0,3445823.story
QuoteWeis received another buyout payment of $2,054,744 as part of the separation agreement for his firing in 2009, bringing the total amount paid to the ousted Irish coach and current Kansas head coach to nearly $10.8 million, according to federal tax documents the school provided the Tribune on Thursday.
Weis received another buyout payment of $2,054,744 as part of the separation agreement for his firing in 2009, bringing the total amount paid to the ousted Irish coach and current Kansas head coach to nearly $10.8 million, according to federal tax documents the school provided the Tribune on Thursday.
It is the second consecutive payment of $2,054,744 to Weis after the initial payment of $6,638,403 after his firing. The university is scheduled for "additional annual payments" through Dec. 2015, so four more installments of the same $2 million-plus figure would bring the total to $18,966,867.
Brian Kelly, meanwhile, earned a total of $1,088,179 from the school for a reporting period of July 2011 through June 2012, the documents show. That likely does not represent the total earnings for the coach that would lead Notre Dame to the national title game in January.
Weiss made $4 million a year for the 5 years he was there, and another $19 million in the buyout of the last 5 years of his contract. I wonder who it was that thought it was a good idea to guarantee his salary for those five years even if he wasn't coaching there any more.
So seedy where is your furor over Gee?
Quote from: katmai on May 31, 2013, 10:58:11 PM
So seedy where is your furor over Gee?
He's still too depressed that Notre Dame's starting QB cheated on his final exam and got tossed out of school. Turn's out that Gee was right and you really
can't trust those Catholics!
Haters gonna hate.
I find it funny Ohio State's national reputation is apparently so linked to sports that 100% of the news stories I've seen about Gee's gaffe have been in sports sections of the various news aggregators I use. There's nothing intrinsically sports-related about the article really, I mean he does negatively mention the SEC but his ramblings covered a lot of ground. It's like in the mind of many news source any Ohio State story is a sports story. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2013, 06:25:49 AM
Haters gonna hate.
Domers gonna cheat :P
I actually admire ND for doing what needed to be done. That had to hurt.
I am looking forward to UTL 2. The first one had some fabulous tralers like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfOgvsgou0
I was dumfounded when Michigan produced, just a few months after Brady Hoke made the famous "This is Michigan, Fergodsakes" line, the intro to UTL that featured just that saying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4Gxh0jYdvs
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brobible.com%2Ffiles%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2Fsports%2Findiana-helmets.png&hash=38083bb9a8af3952ef6b155c6f9ab87d4f5b02d7)
Yuk
Oh wow. All chrome and bling in Bloomington. It's difficult to look at it.
It's the only way to beat the othe B10 teams. By blinding them.
And Gordon Gee "retires" according to the 11Warriers blog (and they all blame ESPN for this).
I'm kinda wondering if anyone ever actually retires from a top OSU job. People just seem to bumble on until they get fired.
Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2013, 03:47:31 PM
(and they all blame ESPN for this).
Of course they do.
Matt Hayes has a take on Ohio. It isn't a nice one: http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2013-06-04/ohio-state-gordon-gee-retires-comments-jim-tressel-terrelle-pryor-arrogance
Hey Berk:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/could-facemask-logos-craze-college-athletic-branding-photo-154935476.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl1.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2F2jzBWaBxRdQXCt74x3A78w--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen%2Fblogs%2Fsptusncaafexperts%2FAZfacemask.jpg&hash=962ed61def87bd50cb37dace58cc1825a9a92375)
That's the new thing in helmets, the Beavers' new ones have color on the facemask too.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgamedayr.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2Foregon-state-nike-logo-uniforms-20131-570x406.jpg&hash=d03aa619f551db4f3baf2b9dc0e0867acdf12ca6)
I don't care if they come out wearing pink leotards and a giant picture of bumby on their helmets, as long as they get to a fucking Rose Bowl in my lifetime.
Too early in the year for 2013 hype vids, but here is a link to the very funny (in a good way) Minnesota ads from 1998: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jfbMrSppECM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jfbMrSppECM)
Just for you, Beeb.
Quote from: sbr on June 10, 2013, 06:26:09 PMThat's the new thing in helmets, the Beavers' new ones have color on the facemask too.
It isn't the color, it's the logo being part of the facemask that's different.
I initially told myself I wouldn't embarrass Berkut by posting this, but my self-discipline broke down. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RQZRpTvp-E8#! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RQZRpTvp-E8#!)
Ducks get 3 year probation and the loss of one scholarship a year for those 3 years. An ex-employee and Chip kelly both got Show Cause judgements against them making it alost impossible for them to get another NCAA job for the next 18 months.
Sorry can't link a source at the moment.
Oh wow. Are they barred from postseason?
No bowl ban.
Quote from: grumbler on June 19, 2013, 07:23:49 AM
I initially told myself I wouldn't embarrass Berkut by posting this, but my self-discipline broke down. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RQZRpTvp-E8#! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RQZRpTvp-E8#!)
I would say something, but
Comments are disabled for this video.
Well, if anything, it's nice to know the Arizona staff has kicked what was left of their self-respect to the wind, to blow off into the distant sunset like so many tumbleweeds.
Oh, the days of Desert Swarm feel so long ago.
The "punishments" are pretty in line with what the consensus has been the last 6-8 months. Everyone I have heard talk about it, from local people to National people interviewed locally all thought they would get a few scholarships lost but no bowl ban. There were a few who thought that since this was the first real case with street agents/recruiting services that had gone before the Committee, the NCAA might throw the book at them to prove a point, but that was mostly just to try and force a second side to the story.
Relived that this is finally over (the light punishment defintely helps :P), I can't believe it dragged on for 3 years or so.
The important thing to note is that it shows that Chip Kelly is in fact the giant cheater that everyone thought he was, putting an indelible taint on the "accomplishments" of Oregon football over the last decade or so.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 02:45:20 PM
Well, if anything, it's nice to know the Arizona staff has kicked what was left of their self-respect to the wind, to blow off into the distant sunset like so many tumbleweeds.
Oh, the days of Desert Swarm feel so long ago.
I don't care what they do, as long as they start winning.
And Desert Swam? Christ, I would be happy with a defense that isn't completely terrible.
I am not sure the 335 is ever going to work in the Pac-12 though.
Another thing I meant to post the other day, the Pac-12 has re-upped some of their Bowl tie-ins. Nothing changes as far as games go, but they are now locked in to playing the Big 10 in 3 of their Bowl games.
Rose Bowl: Pac-12 #1 v Big 10 #1
Holiday Bowl: Pac12 #3 v Big 10 team
Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl (:bleeding): Pac-12 #4 v Big 10 team.
I don't think the second two are the 3 &4 teams in the Big 10 but I'm not 100% sure.
On one hand I like it, it will really create a nice rivalry between the 2 leagues. On the other hand constantly being the shit out of the Big 10 isn't going to do much for the Pac-12's reputation, everyone already knows they are the better league. I would like to see the opportunity to match-up against the SEC be a little easier to happen somewhere outside of the new Playoff System.
Quote from: Berkut on June 26, 2013, 03:07:43 PM
The important thing to note is that it shows that Chip Kelly is in fact the giant cheater that everyone thought he was, putting an indelible taint on the "accomplishments" of Oregon football over the last decade or so.
Kelly was only Head Coach for 4 years, and was only with the program for 6 total. He must have some real talent to taint the Ducks all teh way from New Hampshire.
Quote from: Berkut on June 26, 2013, 02:42:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 19, 2013, 07:23:49 AM
I initially told myself I wouldn't embarrass Berkut by posting this, but my self-discipline broke down. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RQZRpTvp-E8#! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RQZRpTvp-E8#!)
I would say something, but
Comments are disabled for this video.
Wonder how many cars they sold.
Quote from: sbr on June 26, 2013, 03:13:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 26, 2013, 03:07:43 PM
The important thing to note is that it shows that Chip Kelly is in fact the giant cheater that everyone thought he was, putting an indelible taint on the "accomplishments" of Oregon football over the last decade or so.
Kelly was only Head Coach for 4 years, and was only with the program for 6 total. He must have some real talent to taint the Ducks all teh way from New Hampshire.
He was obviously following in the footsteps of those who set the culture before him.
Hell, he was probably a saint before all the Nike money had its inevitable influence.
Just win!
Apparently Slaps on the Wrist around the world are offended at the comparison to what happened to the Ducks. They would prefer a term like Tickle or Light Pet on the Wrist.
EDIT: there is no talk.of a.defamation suit yet.
In 2017 Oregon is supposed to come to Laramie. I will believe it when I see it.
Quote from: sbr on June 26, 2013, 03:11:11 PM
Another thing I meant to post the other day, the Pac-12 has re-upped some of their Bowl tie-ins. Nothing changes as far as games go, but they are now locked in to playing the Big 10 in 3 of their Bowl games.
Rose Bowl: Pac-12 #1 v Big 10 #1
Holiday Bowl: Pac12 #3 v Big 10 team
Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl (:bleeding): Pac-12 #4 v Big 10 team.
I don't think the second two are the 3 &4 teams in the Big 10 but I'm not 100% sure.
On one hand I like it, it will really create a nice rivalry between the 2 leagues. On the other hand constantly being the shit out of the Big 10 isn't going to do much for the Pac-12's reputation, everyone already knows they are the better league. I would like to see the opportunity to match-up against the SEC be a little easier to happen somewhere outside of the new Playoff System.
How long does this agreement last?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 26, 2013, 08:36:49 PM
Quote from: sbr on June 26, 2013, 03:11:11 PM
Another thing I meant to post the other day, the Pac-12 has re-upped some of their Bowl tie-ins. Nothing changes as far as games go, but they are now locked in to playing the Big 10 in 3 of their Bowl games.
Rose Bowl: Pac-12 #1 v Big 10 #1
Holiday Bowl: Pac12 #3 v Big 10 team
Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl (:bleeding): Pac-12 #4 v Big 10 team.
I don't think the second two are the 3 &4 teams in the Big 10 but I'm not 100% sure.
On one hand I like it, it will really create a nice rivalry between the 2 leagues. On the other hand constantly being the shit out of the Big 10 isn't going to do much for the Pac-12's reputation, everyone already knows they are the better league. I would like to see the opportunity to match-up against the SEC be a little easier to happen somewhere outside of the new Playoff System.
How long does this agreement last?
Looks like both are separate 6 year deals.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/24/holiday-bowl-now-a-part-of-b1gs-postseason-slate-too/
http://btn.com/2013/06/24/big-ten-to-face-pac-12-in-kraft-fight-hunger-holiday-bowls/
Quote from: PDH on June 26, 2013, 08:29:40 PM
In 2017 Oregon is supposed to come to Laramie. I will believe it when I see it.
I hadn't seen that before.
College football schedules aren't exactly set in stone but hopefully the Ducks keep that date.
Wyoming goes there to lose next year.
Recently teams have honored their contracts and traveled to Laramie - TAMU, Texas, Nebraska have all come (of course on the old 2 for 1 exchange). In times past big name programs bought out the Laramie game for big money.
OH GOD THE HORNS HOME JERSEY IS CHANGING
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOmC9QBCQAA98eM.jpg)
E: Also Kansas did a thing and has new helmets and uniforms.
That jersey isn't awful, but it would be better to get rid of the "Texas" if they are adding the logo. You certainly don't need both (and since the Texas was there before the logo, it is probably what should go, otherwise this would just be the same old jersey with a slightly different font).
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2013, 03:49:49 PM
That jersey isn't awful, but it would be better to get rid of the "Texas" if they are adding the logo. You certainly don't need both (and since the Texas was there before the logo, it is probably what should go, otherwise this would just be the same old jersey with a slightly different font).
Yeah, it looks busy like that. If Bevo was a smaller collar "device" type thing just in the middle, it wouldn't be so bad (although the collar is the weird Nike "flywire" thing, so there's not really the little section at the center like there used to be).
E: Uniforms:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xHjP1chJYqM/TG_qYuonekI/AAAAAAAAAos/W-2aUOV19wA/s1600/Texas.jpg
E2: Someone on the shag said it'd be good if it were more like the basketball uniform collars:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fespn.imageg.net%2Fgraphics%2Fproduct_images%2Fp11762577dt.jpg&hash=d0b27c466c9adf94308c1a51ad6ac4b579f5f83c)
I can do without the grey, but otherwise yeah.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 08, 2013, 03:15:48 PM
OH GOD THE HORNS HOME JERSEY IS CHANGING
SACRILEGE!!
I mean how many Bevos do the players need to have on them? I think the helmet clues everybody in :P
Actually, they could keep Bevo and the TEXAS without it being too busy if they got rid of the swooshtika. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2013, 04:29:58 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 08, 2013, 03:15:48 PM
OH GOD THE HORNS HOME JERSEY IS CHANGING
SACRILEGE!!
I mean how many Bevos do the players need to have on them? I think the helmet clues everybody in :P
Well, you'd also hope that you wouldn't need to actually have the university name on the jersey, but they've had that for years. Not even Penn State does that, and they have about the most generic-looking jerseys possible. I'd think people would know who the guys in burnt orange are.
But...but...they have had the 'TEXAS' in block letters there for...um...since the 80s or something. TRADITION!
I don't know it just wouldn't look right.
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2013, 04:31:39 PM
Actually, they could keep Bevo and the TEXAS without it being too busy if they got rid of the swooshtika. :lol:
Yeah.
Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2013, 04:31:39 PM
Actually, they could keep Bevo and the TEXAS without it being too busy if they got rid of the swooshtika. :lol:
I was thinking they could integrate two swooshtikas into the Bevo graphic as horns, killing two birds with one stone.
Hey Valmy, Ricky Williams is the new running backs coach at UIW (:pope:) here in SA.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 18, 2013, 11:10:05 PM
Hey Valmy, Ricky Williams is the new running backs coach at UIW (:pope:) here in SA.
I guess that Yoga instructor/hippie medicine thing didn't work out. Man I wanted to take his Yoga class here at UT, that would have been hilarious...but no time :(
Division II huh? Pretty sweet to land a gig like that for your first job, but winning the Heisman has its perks.
Quote from: Valmy on July 19, 2013, 07:45:29 AM
I guess that Yoga instructor/hippie medicine thing didn't work out. Man I wanted to take his Yoga class here at UT, that would have been hilarious...but no time :(
Division II huh? Pretty sweet to land a gig like that for your first job, but winning the Heisman has its perks.
They're taking UTSA's spot in the Southland starting this year, I think (maybe next year). So 1AA/FCS now.
Quote from: Valmy on July 19, 2013, 07:45:29 AM
Division II huh? Pretty sweet to land a gig like that for your first job, but winning the Heisman has its perks.
My sarcasm meter is on the fritz.
Johnny Manziel is under investigation for signing a bunch of autographs at an autograph broker's house for "five figures." There are apparently photos. Other brokers are popping up saying similar things.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 05, 2013, 11:29:04 AM
Johnny Manziel is under investigation for signing a bunch of autographs at an autograph broker's house for "five figures." There are apparently photos. Other brokers are popping up saying similar things.
Ohio State would get double secret probation and he would be shot by firing squad. But since this is the SEC nothing shall happen.
College football is slowly starting to creep into my conscience. Gotta say I'm not really looking forward to it, at least not from a WVU fan perspective.
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2013, 11:30:32 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 05, 2013, 11:29:04 AM
Johnny Manziel is under investigation for signing a bunch of autographs at an autograph broker's house for "five figures." There are apparently photos. Other brokers are popping up saying similar things.
Ohio State would get double secret probation and he would be shot by firing squad. But since this is the SEC nothing shall happen.
ermahgerd, tattoos.
Anyways, I'd like to see the B10, SEC and PAC12 to tell the NCAA to fuck off.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 05, 2013, 11:44:33 AM
ermahgerd, tattoos.
Anyways, I'd like to see the B10, SEC and PAC12 to tell the NCAA to fuck off.
I think that is exactly what is about to go down...except they have to take the Big 12 and ACC with them. :nelson:
I think you mean the Big 12, Pac 12, and SEC have to take the Big 10 and ACC with them.
I wonder how it'll get spun when A&M still only loses two games with that schedule of theirs after Manziel gets suspended.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 05, 2013, 11:58:04 AM
I think you mean the Big 12, Pac 12, and SEC have to take the Big 10 and ACC with them.
I'm not biting today.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 05, 2013, 11:44:33 AM
ermahgerd, tattoos.
You meant to say "ermahgerd, 'tattoos.'" It was a drug den disguised as a tattoo parlor (and it was the DEA that started the tipoff to Tressel). I don't think anyone in the know really believes the players traded all that shit for a coupla tats.
QuoteAnyways, I'd like to see the B10, SEC and PAC12 to tell the NCAA to fuck off.
They will certainly change their role in it, but the B10, SEC, and Pac-12 (along with the ACC and Big 12 schools) and basically ARE the NCAA. The chair of the executive committee is always the president of one of those schools (currently Michigan State's president) and those schools wield a lot of power. The problems of (1) crap enforcement and (2) too many schools in D-1A are mostly problems created by the BCS schools.
Domer Shamrock Series uniforms:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcbssports.com%2Fimages%2Fcollegefootball%2Fnduni2013395.jpg&hash=2206768addfad8a81e3287432f82170fa91c8af5)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbssports.com%2Fimages%2Fcollegefootball%2Fnotredame20131.png&hash=224b15fe39165b2b127399bba2074afb91ddbe1f)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbssports.com%2Fimages%2Fcollegefootball%2Fnd2013gloves.jpg&hash=05d081b69206ce46cd6a91f167955ec1778034eb)
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/23023682/photos-notre-dames-shamrock-series-uniforms
So much for ND traditions! :lol:
The uni isn't awful, other than the asinine shamrock on the helmet (redundant given the much-better-looking shamrocks on the shoulders) and the way-too-long sleeves on the undershirt. For South Florida, this would be a good uni.
Gonna be hard to see the numbers, given the lack of contrast between white and gold.
I suddenly want a Shamrock Shake.
Also, timmay has tainted ND for the upcoming season. Sorry Seedy.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 05, 2013, 02:52:02 PM
Also, timmay has tainted ND for the upcoming season. Sorry Seedy.
And he still has another year to wait before Maryland gets in the B10. :(
Quote from: derspiess on August 05, 2013, 11:35:26 AM
College football is slowly starting to creep into my conscience. Gotta say I'm not really looking forward to it, at least not from a WVU fan perspective.
Yeah, I think this is gonna be a rough year for the Mountaineers. Losing talents like Smith, Austin, and Bailey all at the same time would put any program in a hole. I think WVU's defense will be better, but not good enough to carry the team. I don't see them being a bowl team this year, but after that, things will get better.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 05, 2013, 03:00:00 PM
And he still has another year to wait before Maryland gets in the B10. :(
And when they do, they will share a division with Michigan, Ohio, and Penn State. Good luck with that! :P
This year should be Texas' year. Everybody else is down, most of the team is back, the schedule is kind. A conference championship should be likely but, you know, they still have Mack Brown so them losing to OU 77-0 is always a possibility no matter how down OU is.
The problem with Texas winning a conference championship is that it is a Big12 conference championship, and hence not really meaningful anyway.
Texas, Big 12 member: More Rose Bowl wins than Arizona. Hell they didn't even have to win the Big 12 to get in there one of those years.
E: Johnny Hancock news: His "assistant" was apparently telling autograph brokers he wouldn't sign anything for free prior to this big signing.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 05, 2013, 04:57:38 PM
Texas, Big 12 member: More Rose Bowl wins than Arizona.
Well to be fair Harvard, Ivy League member: More Rose Bowl wins than Arizona.
Quote from: Valmy on August 05, 2013, 05:00:50 PM
Well to be fair Harvard, Ivy League member: More Rose Bowl wins than Arizona.
Harsh. Hey TCU got one too a couple years back as a MWC member. Maybe I'm overestimating the value of going to the Rose Bowl?
I am very much looking forward to this season. I think Michigan is going to surprise a lot of people. My prediction: 11-1 in the regular season, and B10 CG winner. I think the loss is likeliest to come to Northwestern; Northwestern isn't your dad's Northwestern.
I think the biggest laugh this season in the Big Ten is that the conference officials are assuring everyone that, while it seems quite possible that Michigan will play Ohio twice in two weeks (The Game, then the conference championship game), it can only happen this year. The fact of the matter is that the boneheaded divisional assignments of the last 3 years was designed to produce exactly this result! UM and OSU failed to win their divisions the last two years, though.
I am completely impervious to any slurs on my Wildcats in regards to Rose Bowl wins. Or appearances.
Skin is much too thick at this point.
Speaking of TCU, they seem like they could be pretty solid this year. They should probably stop losing starters for "personal" reasons though. One of their LBs (Joel Hasley) left the team today. They lost their starting LT earlier in the offseason in the same way.
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2013, 05:08:53 PM
I think the biggest laugh this season in the Big Ten is that the conference officials are assuring everyone that, while it seems quite possible that Michigan will play Ohio twice in two weeks (The Game, then the conference championship game), it can only happen this year. The fact of the matter is that the boneheaded divisional assignments of the last 3 years was designed to produce exactly this result! UM and OSU failed to win their divisions the last two years, though.
Oh right, they're going to be in the same division next year. I'd forgotten about that. The East is/will be stacked.
I took a road trip to Gainesville last winter. I was amused that the football stadium ("The Swamp") is at the dead center of campus and everything radiates from there; as though someone decided to build a university around a pre-existing stadium.
It was especially amusing in that the theater and museum were exiled far from main campus, beyond the experimental farms.
In any event it's a foregone conclusion in these parts that Ohio State will win the Big Ten only to be humiliated by Florida in a BCS bowl. :)
Quote from: Savonarola on August 05, 2013, 05:47:41 PM
In any event it's a foregone conclusion in these parts that Ohio State will win the Big Ten only to be humiliated by Florida in a BCS bowl. :)
Florida won't get picked to go to the Rose Bowl, so no. They'll probably get humiliated by Oregon. :P
Quote from: grumbler on August 05, 2013, 04:52:17 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 05, 2013, 03:00:00 PM
And he still has another year to wait before Maryland gets in the B10. :(
And when they do, they will share a division with Michigan, Ohio, and Penn State. Good luck with that! :P
No kidding. Nothing like a perpetual last-week-of-August season the whole year long as everybody's tune-up game. Yay for me.
Stupid ND and their uniform bullshit. Should've at least stuck with the white-on-black SS Leprechaun from last year one more time.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 05, 2013, 05:10:29 PM
Speaking of TCU, they seem like they could be pretty solid this year. They should probably stop losing starters for "personal" reasons though. One of their LBs (Joel Hasley) left the team today. They lost their starting LT earlier in the offseason in the same way.
After their total personnel meltdown last season, and my rather premature report on their demise, I have decided TCU really has a one item checklist:
Is Gary Patterson still their head coach? Yes? Then they will be fine.
Quote from: Savonarola on August 05, 2013, 05:47:41 PM
In any event it's a foregone conclusion in these parts that Ohio State will win the Big Ten only to be humiliated by Florida in a BCS bowl. :)
That would be the Floridians dream outcome, for sure. :lol:
I could see Florida v Ohio in a BCS bowl this year, when neither win their conference.
I'm keeping expectations low. Ohio State goes 7-5.
And on any other forum, Grumber calling ohio state 'ohio' world have a pack of Buckeyes braying for his blood.
Not here though. :goodboy:
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 05, 2013, 08:11:40 PM
And on any other forum, Grumber calling ohio state 'ohio' world have a pack of Buckeyes braying for his blood.
Tell the team that plays in Ohio Stadium and spells out script Ohio with their band* that their name isn't "Ohio." :bowler:
* a tradition borrowed, with permission, from its inventors in the Michigan Marching Band. :goodboy:
ESPN has seen video of Johnny Hancock signing stuff and turning down "additional" money for personalized autographs:
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9544137/broker-says-johnny-manziel-took-7500-autographing-helmets
QuoteAn East Coast autograph broker told ESPN on Tuesday that Johnny Manziel was paid $7,500 for signing approximately 300 mini- and full-sized helmets on Jan. 11 and 12 while he was attending the Walter Camp Football Foundation event in January.
The broker played two cell phone videos for ESPN showing Manziel signing white Texas A&M helmets and footballs laid out on a bed in a hotel room. The video does not show Manziel accepting any money.
The broker said the room was at The Omni in New Haven, Conn., during the Camp event. He said the signing took place at three different times on Jan. 11-12, totaling about an hour.
The broker and his partner originally requested money to release the videos for use on ESPN, which ESPN declined to pay. The broker did allow ESPN's Joe Schad to view the videos. Later, the broker said he had decided not to sell the videos.
The broker said the videos, approximately nine minutes in length in total, were initially shot only to be used as proof with authenticating company PSA/DNA.
On the videos, which the broker said were recorded without Manziel's knowledge, ESPN heard Manziel say "you never did a signing with me" and that if the broker were to tell anyone, he would refuse to deal with him again in the future. Manziel, who appeared comfortable throughout the video recordings, also said if asked, he would say he had simply been approached by various autograph seekers.
At one point, ESPN heard a broker ask Manziel if he would take additional cash to sign with special inscriptions, but Manziel declined, indicating he had done that before and it led to questions. The video does not show Manziel accepting cash, which the broker alleges happened three times. The broker told ESPN Manziel said he wanted money for new rims for his vehicle.
The broker said he secured so many autographs from Manziel that not all of them had been listed for sale. He stated some had been sold on Ebay and some had been passed on to dealers. He also said that Manziel's friend and personal assistant -- Nate Fitch- - was not present or involved in the alleged transactions.
The broker said he does not intend to cooperate with the ongoing NCAA investigation involving Manziel and autographs, originally reported Sunday by Outside the Lines.
In that report, OTL said the NCAA was looking into Manziel getting paid for signing hundreds of autographs on photos and sports memorabilia around the time of the Discover BCS National Championship game in Miami. Two sources said they witnessed the signing, but neither saw the actual exchange of money.
Three sources told "OTL" that Manziel signed photographs, footballs, mini football helmets and other items at the request of an autograph broker named Drew Tieman. Two sources, who are aware of the signing arrangement, told "OTL" that Tieman approached Manziel on Jan. 6, when he landed at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport to attend the game between Alabama and Notre Dame the next day.
After that meeting, three sources said, Manziel, accompanied by Fitch, visited Tieman's residence and signed hundreds of items in the main room of the apartment despite the fact that there were many people in the room. Before Manziel left South Florida, after taking in the title game, he signed hundreds of autographs more, one source said.
The source also told "OTLs" that James Garland, the NCAA's assistant director of enforcement, in June contacted Tieman and at least one person associated with the signings. The source said Garland, who did not return calls from "Outside the Lines" for comment, told the person that he wanted to talk about Manziel signing items that had appeared for sale on eBay. An NCAA spokeswoman cited NCAA policy to "Outside the Lines" and declined to comment on Sunday.
If the NCAA investigation finds that Manziel has violated NCAA Bylaw 12.5.2.1 -- accepting money for promoting or advertising the commercial sale of a product or service -- he could be ruled ineligible.
Here MBM to help you get fired up: http://www.texassports.com/news/2013/8/6/FB_0806130619.aspx
A&M is clearly too sloppy in their cheating to be in the SEC. Cam Newton never would have gotten caught on tape.
New website? Not MackBrown-Texas Football.com anymore? I know it's there as the title, but that used to be the actual address. :hmm:
Thanks for the video. Mad Dog is ridiculous, but it's good to see the Horns again.
QuoteA&M is clearly too sloppy in their cheating to be in the SEC. Cam Newton never would have gotten caught on tape.
I think Johnny just doesn't give a shit.
Isn't Johnny's father loaded?
Yes.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 06, 2013, 04:18:59 PM
New website? Not MackBrown-Texas Football.com anymore?
Yes, and as you can imagine everybody was flipping out about the implications when they made that move :lol:
:D I can imagine.
I don't know if I like the new design, but I do like that it's now Texas Sports instead of Mack Brown. Not because I think he's getting fired or retiring suddenly or whatever, but because...why did the website have his name on it in the first place? Nahmean?
Wyoming starts off by playing Nebraska (ouch), then a few games against pansies. Then the conference games against stronger teams. Later on Boisieie State gets to paint the University of Wyoming Blue and shove a football up the Cowboy's ass.
For many, this is the time of year of high hopes. I have been a Wyoming fan for those anymore.
Wyoming. :console:
And I thought my Terpiness was Quixotic.
You gotta love the team you first loved. Hell, they are my Alma Mater and I came back and I now teach a class there. I am Wyoming to the core, but I just know they will scrape along and get to a bowl every few years. They will never be great again (they were kind of in the 1960s), and they will always cause me pain.
Quote from: PDH on August 06, 2013, 09:39:17 PM
I am Wyoming to the core,
Just like Liz Cheney.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 06, 2013, 09:49:47 PM
Quote from: PDH on August 06, 2013, 09:39:17 PM
I am Wyoming to the core,
Just like Liz Cheney.
I got my fishing license a LONG time before she did. Plus, Jackson isn't really in Wyoming.
I was going through the Ohio State schedule to see which games I could go to. It looks like only one, the 11/23 Indiana game. And the one might not be possible.
:(
And one Wittenberg Tigers game. To get the youngsters acclimated to going to fooseball games.
Yeah, the only Michigan game this year for which tickets are even possible for me is when they visit Penn State! :lol:
Hurrah for huge stadia with fickle fans.
Rich Rod (actually, his wife) has added to the saga (part 1 is introduced to this thread in Post #57): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nO6cXgrC8wI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nO6cXgrC8wI)
It's actually not nearly as painful as the first one - it features the players and plays. I won't call it good, but it's not awful, either.
Athlon Sports had a list of the best, and worst, logos in the NCAA.
Texas was #1.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsteveblackshow.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2Ftexas-longhorns-logo.jpg&hash=d97e77389c074c877b8f4e52edd8652d67f72b56)
Oregon State was the very worst.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fphoto%2F2013%2F0305%2Fncf_e_osylogo_600.jpg&hash=7e9914ba9020f192461215faae4b3b7947442e8e)
Beavershark!
Odd that our steer head would be so beloved. I mean I like it and all but I am a fan.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2013, 08:42:55 PM
Odd that our steer head would be so beloved. I mean I like it and all but I am a fan.
I am not sure how "beloved" it is - the Athlon thing is just one guy's opinion - but I have always liked it.
I don't know why the Athlon guy chose the Michigan block M without the border, and then complained that it didn't have a border. :lol:
I also am surprised that he likes the BYU logo so much. I'd argue it is one of the most counter-intuitive designs out there (though attractive): what does "Y" stand for?
Yeah, the Texas logo is distinct, historic, easily recognizable in its simplicity.
Quote from: grumbler on August 12, 2013, 08:53:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2013, 08:42:55 PM
Odd that our steer head would be so beloved. I mean I like it and all but I am a fan.
I am not sure how "beloved" it is - the Athlon thing is just one guy's opinion - but I have always liked it.
I don't know why the Athlon guy chose the Michigan block M without the border, and then complained that it didn't have a border. :lol:
I also am surprised that he likes the BYU logo so much. I'd argue it is one of the most counter-intuitive designs out there (though attractive): what does "Y" stand for?
I don't know why the guy liked so many logos that are just a letter. Maybe it's just me, but how does a W, M, T, S, G or N rate as a great logo?
The article itself:
http://athlonsports.com/college-football/college-footballs-best-and-worst-logos-2013
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2013, 10:05:29 PM
I don't know why the guy liked so many logos that are just a letter. Maybe it's just me, but how does a W, M, T, S, G or N rate as a great logo?
Simplicity, tradition, universal recognition.
Unlike, say, a poorly designed mishmash of the lovechild of an F-16 and a CF-18A.
UW # Ocho!
:x
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 12, 2013, 10:07:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2013, 10:05:29 PM
I don't know why the guy liked so many logos that are just a letter. Maybe it's just me, but how does a W, M, T, S, G or N rate as a great logo?
Simplicity, tradition, universal recognition.
Unlike, say, a poorly designed mishmash of the lovechild of an F-16 and a CF-18A.
Then you must love the logo of my other favourite team:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwinnipegharvest.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2Fwinnipegblubomberslogo.jpg&hash=91bb5c49a0048826f3f58afae907ab6a069b141c)
Besides - the Jets logo is a mishmash of a CF-18A, a F-16, the RCAF roundel, and the points of a compass.
UTSA stuff:
http://s812.photobucket.com/user/cjolvera/media/UTSA2013_zps4334a34d.jpg.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcoolerchronicles.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2FCATIGloves.jpg&hash=aff6d296b9ff272752a12c32e161daedd1bb365a)
The WaPo is doing a series on Da'Shawn Hand, the Woodbridge, VA player considered by Scout 9and others, but not everyone) to be the best recruit in the country. The first installment was yesterday: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/highschools/dashawn-hand-a-vaunted-college-football-recruit-with-a-hefty-decision-on-his-mind/2013/08/23/5d1de9c4-0b5a-11e3-89fe-abb4a5067014_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/highschools/dashawn-hand-a-vaunted-college-football-recruit-with-a-hefty-decision-on-his-mind/2013/08/23/5d1de9c4-0b5a-11e3-89fe-abb4a5067014_story.html)
The reason I find this interesting is that it is practically a multi-part ad for the University of Michigan. Here's today's installment, comparing Hand's final 3 schools (Alabama, Florida, and Michigan): http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/firstand17/2013/08/23/dashawn-hands-college-choices/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/firstand17/2013/08/23/dashawn-hands-college-choices/) Michigan is academically the highest-ranked, most competitive, most expensive, and most efficient (4-year graduation rate) of the three, by far, and is just as good in athletics (though worse in BCS bowl win %, it has the biggest stadium and most fans).
Now, if this really was a race, and the Post could find a way to make the race exciting, I could see the purpose of the series. But it isn't really a race. Hand has been to Michigan multiple times, including two visits with his parents, and they are sold on Michigan. He changed his plans for his major after visiting Michigan, because it had the exact major in sports venue design he wanted, only he didn't know that schools offered such a thing. He hasn't even visited Florida yet. When asked if this was really still a race:
QuoteThe question is, Do you know which school you're going to pick, and are just not ready to say — or are you still deciding?
"It's a beautiful day outside," Hand replies, stone-faced.
Pardon?
"It's a beautiful day outside."
He's picked his school. He just doesn't want to lie about it.
So my question is, why would the Post do such a huge favor for Michigan? Is it because they happen to have a #1 recruit in the country on their doorstep, and so feel compelled to cover this in depth even though it amounts to an ad for one school?
As an aside, I did like the response to questions about Ohio:
QuoteOhio State's downfall? "I don't want to talk about it," he says.
The look on his face when he hears the name "Urban Meyer" says it all. Whatever snake oil Urbz was selling backfired on him with Hand. Love it!
Sports venue design? Is that an architecture program?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 24, 2013, 02:12:47 PM
Sports venue design? Is that an architecture program?
It's mostly architecture/engineering with some stuff from the School of Kinesiology.
Hm. Kurt Bohls is reporting the numbers will be on the sides of the Horns helmets for the first game. Also that they'll vote whether or not to keep them for the rest of the year.
These:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgamedayr.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F08%2Ftexas-longhorns-number-helmets.jpg&hash=d21bf8caccb8020ecf913918d9b963d840a59fbe)
Or something similar.
Of course, it's Bohls, so it'll probably end up that they just won't have helmets at all.
Helmet has too much stuff on it.
Texas did that back in the 60s but they like to bring it out again for throwback shit. Because so many of our fans and players remember things from 50 years ago.
By the way Val, have you be flying your flags and hooking your horns? BILL DEMANDS IT
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 28, 2013, 10:56:50 AM
By the way Val, have you be flying your flags and hooking your horns? BILL DEMANDS IT
Oh hell no. I spend most of my time on campus and that would just make me look like a dork :P
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2013, 11:19:26 AM
Oh hell no. I spend most of my time on campus and that would just make me look like a dork :P
Oh come on! You know you want to be That Guy walking around campus all UT'ed out. Tshirt, track pants, hat, those flip flops with the logo, etc, plus flags and stickers and shit on your car.
We'll just call you Bill from now on. :D
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 28, 2013, 10:52:23 AM
Helmet has too much stuff on it.
Agreed. Michigan did the numbers things a coupla years ago (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmvictors.com%2FWordPress%2Fimages%2F2009%2Fimage307.png&hash=5ce1361c0ecf2c63fe58b00e7277ddf1964fc570) but it made their helmets too busy as well, and they dropped it again.
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXu6l2EVcG4
Oh Oklahoma you wacky guys.
Arizona and RR still have not settled on a QB.
Maybe that is just RR playing things close to the vest since Arizona has a stupidly easy OOC schedule this year, so why reveal anything?
But usually, in my experience, when you don't have a QB take the starters job, it is rarely because several of them are just that good...usually it is because all of them are just that mediocre... :(
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 02:18:53 PM
Arizona and RR still have not settled on a QB.
Maybe that is just RR playing things close to the vest since Arizona has a stupidly easy OOC schedule this year, so why reveal anything?
But usually, in my experience, when you don't have a QB take the starters job, it is rarely because several of them are just that good...usually it is because all of them are just that mediocre... :(
Or maybe you have some that are good and just don't know it yet. Whichever is best will float to the top in a RichRod system.
So Johnny Football's going to miss the first half.
At least that way he can watch Mussburger skeeve on his girlfriend live.
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 02:18:53 PM
Arizona and RR still have not settled on a QB.
Maybe that is just RR playing things close to the vest since Arizona has a stupidly easy OOC schedule this year, so why reveal anything?
But usually, in my experience, when you don't have a QB take the starters job, it is rarely because several of them are just that good...usually it is because all of them are just that mediocre... :(
Still better-off than Sparty - they started last week with a two-way race for the starting QB job, and ended with a 4-way race! :lol:
Also, is anything going to happen with Arizona's defense this year? I know you think it can't get worse, but that's what Michigan fans thought in 2009, as well.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 06:17:28 PM
So Johnny Football's going to miss the first half.
At least that way he can watch Mussburger skeeve on his girlfriend live.
Heh if he was QB at Ohio State the NCAA would have demanded he be shot by firing squad.
Quote from: grumbler on August 29, 2013, 08:47:57 AM
Still better-off than Sparty - they started last week with a two-way race for the starting QB job, and ended with a 4-way race! :lol:
:lol: Damn that sucks
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2013, 08:50:42 AM
Heh if he was QB at Ohio State the NCAA would have demanded he be shot by firing squad.
If he was a quarterback at Ohio State he would have parked his $80,000 sports car at his apartment, declared for the NFL draft, refused to talk to the NCAA, and gotten off scot-free.
In the Manziel case, the NCAA did (and could do) nothing, just as they couldn't in the Clarrett case. Manziel's pathetic suspension came from A&M.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 29, 2013, 08:58:37 AM
:lol: Damn that sucks
Sparty is really, really going to suck this year (no QB, no receivers, no RB, no Oline). They'll probably beat Michigan but not qualify for a bowl.
My panties are getting moist for the upcoming season.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2013, 06:17:28 PM
So Johnny Football's going to miss the first half.
At least that way he can watch Mussburger skeeve on his girlfriend live.
I think he should be made to sit on the sideline in full uniform signing autographs for free (with an endless line of fans and supply of sharpies) for the full first half of the game. :)
Quote from: lustindarkness on August 29, 2013, 10:18:31 AM
I think he should be made to sit on the sideline in full uniform signing autographs for free (with an endless line of fans and supply of sharpies) for the full first half of the game. :)
I think he should be forced to go into the stands and collect the autographs of 500 fans, to make up for his signing all those autographs of his own.
Quote from: grumbler on August 29, 2013, 11:53:17 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on August 29, 2013, 10:18:31 AM
I think he should be made to sit on the sideline in full uniform signing autographs for free (with an endless line of fans and supply of sharpies) for the full first half of the game. :)
I think he should be forced to go into the stands and collect the autographs of 500 fans, to make up for his signing all those autographs of his own.
That would be for the second half of the game. :)
Quote from: grumbler on August 29, 2013, 08:47:57 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 28, 2013, 02:18:53 PM
Arizona and RR still have not settled on a QB.
Maybe that is just RR playing things close to the vest since Arizona has a stupidly easy OOC schedule this year, so why reveal anything?
But usually, in my experience, when you don't have a QB take the starters job, it is rarely because several of them are just that good...usually it is because all of them are just that mediocre... :(
Still better-off than Sparty - they started last week with a two-way race for the starting QB job, and ended with a 4-way race! :lol:
Yeah, that is not good. Not good at all.
It is interesting what is going to happen at Arizona. Consesnus seems to be that BJ Denker has the job. Replacing Matt Scott is a tall order though.
But we have a solid O-Line and Kadeem Carey, so on offense we might not be quite as good as last year, but still should be very solid.
Quote
Also, is anything going to happen with Arizona's defense this year? I know you think it can't get worse, but that's what Michigan fans thought in 2009, as well.
That is the million dollar question.
Supposedly the system is tough to learn, and we return a lot of starters from last year, and have a lot of guys who played a LOT last year. But that is a lot of guys returning from a utterly terrible defense.
If they can just improve to being kind of mediocre, we should be all right...
Quote from: grumbler on August 29, 2013, 09:15:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2013, 08:50:42 AM
Heh if he was QB at Ohio State the NCAA would have demanded he be shot by firing squad.
If he was a quarterback at Ohio State he would have parked his $80,000 sports car at his apartment, declared for the NFL draft, refused to talk to the NCAA, and gotten off scot-free.
Who the hell would believe somebody would want to pay for an OSU QB's autograph anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2013, 12:32:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 29, 2013, 09:15:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2013, 08:50:42 AM
Heh if he was QB at Ohio State the NCAA would have demanded he be shot by firing squad.
If he was a quarterback at Ohio State he would have parked his $80,000 sports car at his apartment, declared for the NFL draft, refused to talk to the NCAA, and gotten off scot-free.
Who the hell would believe somebody would want to pay for an OSU QB's autograph anyway.
:lol:
MAH TOMCZAK
Miller's on the cover of SI. *snicker*
SMU's giving Texas Tech a little what-for tonight. They're not getting pushed around tonight.
Michigan State is doing what Michigan State does well: keeping Western Michigan in the game.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 30, 2013, 09:36:27 PM
SMU's giving Texas Tech a little what-for tonight. They're not getting pushed around tonight.
SMU is getting better under June Jones and Tech is breaking in a baby head coach. I thought SMU had a decent shot tonight.
Hey MBM TWC got the Longhorn Network :punk:
So party at my house tommorow night :showoff:
I was getting pretty nervous I would be unable to see the big Wyoming-Texas State game.
If they (SMU) stop doing stupid shit like roughing the QB and actually get the bounces on these QB fumbles, they can win this game.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2013, 09:49:25 PM
I was getting pretty nervous I would be unable to see the big Wyoming-Texas State game.
The 'Pokes will be looking for...well, not vengeance...not smackdown...perhaps a decent game vs Texas State!
Speaking of Texas State if you are interested in coming down here for the game PDH let me know.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2013, 10:14:04 PM
Speaking of Texas State if you are interested in coming down here for the game PDH let me know.
I would be, but after all the flying around to funerals/memorials/signing shit for my Dad's will...I ain't got the bucks.
Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2013, 09:49:25 PM
Hey MBM TWC got the Longhorn Network :punk:
So party at my house tommorow night :showoff:
I was getting pretty nervous I would be unable to see the big Wyoming-Texas State game.
:punk: Nice! I was going to look in to possibly setting up a...uhh....secondary account or whatever they're called for you so you could watch it online. This is better, since I'm not even at home this weekend.
You could do that for me! If said secondary account would get me access to the Pac-12.com?
U-verse isn't showing up on their list of providers on the site there (I don't get it at home either). Time Warner is though, so it might work for Valmy.
I usually just watch P12N games on shady streaming sites.
My panties are wet in anticipation.
Ahh, Saturday game day. I have finally awoken after my usual blackout of college football between seasons.
I knew the Big XII was going to be ass this year but good lord this is brutal :lol:
Maryland's march to the ACC Championship has already begun as they lead the powerhouse that is Florida International, 13 to 3 after the 1st.
I am getting increasingly agitated.
AGITATED
WHARGARBLL
:lol: Lucked out on that penalty, sucker.
NOBODY CIRCLES THE WAGONS LIKE THE UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO
You can tell the crowd is getting a little pissed.
DRINK SOME MOTHERFUCKING GATORADE BRAXTON.
Seems you're spending a lot of energy worrying about a game that you know is going to be a W.
Yeah, Buffalo's fading. I blame the lack of the Fourth Reich.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 31, 2013, 01:42:11 PM
Seems you're spending a lot of energy worrying about a game that you know is going to be a W.
I didn't think I was, posting on a message board.
MAH FINGER CRAMPS
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 30, 2013, 11:45:43 PM
U-verse isn't showing up on their list of providers on the site there (I don't get it at home either). Time Warner is though, so it might work for Valmy.
I usually just watch P12N games on shady streaming sites.
I have U-Verse and the LHN.
What a load of horseshit. Shitty defensive plays, Froggy chick announcing and my pizza is cold and there is nobody around to heat it up for me.
HORSESHIT.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 31, 2013, 01:52:54 PM
I have U-Verse and the LHN.
So does everyone else with U-verse and the right TV package. ;) Berkut was talking about the Pac 12 Network (online).
At least they seem to have taught Braxton how to carry the football tucked in rather than flailing around like a windmill with it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 31, 2013, 01:53:18 PM
What a load of horseshit. Shitty defensive plays, Froggy chick announcing and my pizza is cold and there is nobody around to heat it up for me.
HORSESHIT.
Who knew Meyer went for two the first two times because he knew he needed the points? :P
"Johnny Football is back!!!!!!!!11!!111111"
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2013, 12:14:46 PM
I knew the Big XII was going to be ass this year but good lord this is brutal :lol:
I was bummed about WVU finally coming back and beating William and Mary. The K-State game was hilarious though. Suck it, Snyder. Tech won, unfortunately (I was hoping ol Garrett Gilbert would get himself a W against them), but hey maybe the Pokes will keep it up!
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 31, 2013, 03:38:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2013, 12:14:46 PM
I knew the Big XII was going to be ass this year but good lord this is brutal :lol:
I was bummed about WVU finally coming back and beating William and Mary. The K-State game was hilarious though. Suck it, Snyder. Tech won, unfortunately (I was hoping ol Garrett Gilbert would get himself a W against them), but hey maybe the Pokes will keep it up!
Yeah well it is all fun and games until one of those scrubs plays their best game of the year and beats Texas.
I do hope the Toads do well tonight though. I kinda like them for some reason right now. I'm sure it'll wear off.
Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2013, 03:40:59 PM
Yeah well it is all fun and games until one of those scrubs plays their best game of the year and beats Texas.
That doesn't have anything to do with them losing to North Dakota State or whoever though.
Outside of a dumbass cornerback getting ejected for hitting a sliding QB in the head the Ducks look pretty good so far. 38-3 at half.
Michigan is playing the sloppiest 49-6 offensive game imaginable. The defense is absolutely dominant, though. I think half of Central Michigan's plays have been for losses.
Gotta love Hoke's hatred for punting, though. No punts, and 2 fourth-down conversions.
Interesting. Michigan is playing the scrubs with 17 minutes to go.
Damn! With 1 minute to go, the all-freshman Michigan team finally has to punt. The freshman punter punts for 51 yards, fair catch. I guess if you have to punt, that's the way to do it.
59-9 Michigan.
Rod Gilmore embarrassing himself more than usual during the Okie State - Miss State game. OSU's OOC schedule is made up of Mississippi State, UTSA, and Lamar. Apparently, the addition of Mississippi State makes it a legit difficult OOC schedule or something, and if they win out, they should have a shot at the NC game specifically because of the Miss State game on there.
E: The Pokes ended up winning just now 21-3. Played like an SEC team, according to Gilmore. Lolz.
That was a pretty shitty OSU passing game, looking at the box score. 4.4 yards per attempt? How can you even do that on 21/33 passing?
SEC passing? I don't know.
Quote from: grumbler on August 31, 2013, 06:02:03 PM
That was a pretty shitty OSU passing game, looking at the box score. 4.4 yards per attempt? How can you even do that on 21/33 passing?
They have one of those horizontal passing attacks so beloved in the Big 12.
USM continues its race to the bottom of the former division I.
Beavers were losing to Eastern Washington when I turned the game on in the 3rd quarter. They just took a 3 point lead with 4 minutes left in the 3rd.
EDIT: And the won Ducks 66-3 and no one got hurt. Thankfully that;s over.
EDITEDIT: The Beavers' defense is looking horrid. EWU is marching on them and just missed a wide open 50+ yd TD.
what am i watching on the longhorn network
I just saw the Wyoming-Nebraska score.
Is it: TOO EARLY 2 DREAM
Eastern washington driving for the go ahead td with 2 minutes left.
Down 3; 1st down on the osu 4 yard line.
On one hand this sucks for the pac-12. On the other beaver fan tears are my favorite flavor.
Oh silly beavers. Down 4 with 18 seconds.
ffs missed pat, only down 3.
Either way osu gave up 49 points to eastern washington.
EDIT: Damn, EWU QB threw for 400+ yards and 4 TDs, and ran for 100+ yds and 2 TDs.
Arizona look by far the best out of the Pac-12 so far. Rose Bowl is almost inevitable this year.
The hit that got Terrance Mitchell ejected. At first at full speed I thought the QB slide under him while he was already diving, but nope. The penalty and ejection were definitely legit.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbssports.com%2Fimages%2Fcollegefootball%2Fmitchelloregonnichstate.gif&hash=22605e64cffa88bb199b3cb5f0202d2ed7c5a217)
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/23418097/gif-oregons-terrance-mitchell-ejected-for-vicious-hit
The QB is Bobby Hebert's kid. He didn't come back in, but they said he could have. I'm not sure I buy that.
I wonder if Mitchell gets additional punishment from the conference?
Easy call.
I wonder when players are going to figure this shit out.
To be fair, I suppose most of them have.
New rule this year (would not apply to this play):
*Any* contact above the shoulders to a defenseless play is an automatic disqaulification. No judgement involved. Also, a QB after a change of possession is now defined as a defenseless player.
If it happens in the second half, the player is out for the first half of the next game as well, subject to review by the NCAA coordinator of officials.
When in doubt, throw them out!
Not that there was any question on the Mitchell play.
Quote from: Berkut on August 31, 2013, 08:58:31 PM
New rule this year (would not apply to this play):
*Any* contact above the shoulders to a defenseless play is an automatic disqaulification. No judgement involved. Also, a QB after a change of possession is now defined as a defenseless player.
If it happens in the second half, the player is out for the first half of the next game as well, subject to review by the NCAA coordinator of officials.
Do they use video replay to check ejections on that rule too? Or just the Targeting one?
Quote from: sbr on August 31, 2013, 09:00:38 PM
When in doubt, throw them out!
Not that there was any question on the Mitchell play.
Quote from: Berkut on August 31, 2013, 08:58:31 PM
New rule this year (would not apply to this play):
*Any* contact above the shoulders to a defenseless play is an automatic disqaulification. No judgement involved. Also, a QB after a change of possession is now defined as a defenseless player.
If it happens in the second half, the player is out for the first half of the next game as well, subject to review by the NCAA coordinator of officials.
Do they use video replay to check ejections on that rule too? Or just the Targeting one?
Yes.
They will review the play on video.
Looks like he was already beginning to slide.
Granted, the defensive player may have thought it would be tight, but these DBs need to be anticipating the slide.
Quote from: Berkut on August 31, 2013, 09:04:15 PM
Quote from: sbr on August 31, 2013, 09:00:38 PM
When in doubt, throw them out!
Not that there was any question on the Mitchell play.
Quote from: Berkut on August 31, 2013, 08:58:31 PM
New rule this year (would not apply to this play):
*Any* contact above the shoulders to a defenseless play is an automatic disqaulification. No judgement involved. Also, a QB after a change of possession is now defined as a defenseless player.
If it happens in the second half, the player is out for the first half of the next game as well, subject to review by the NCAA coordinator of officials.
Do they use video replay to check ejections on that rule too? Or just the Targeting one?
Yes.
They will review the play on video.
But just the ejection, the penalty can't be changed by video replay right?
How do they judge intent by replay? I doubt they would ever overturn an ejection. Hopefully I am wrong.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 31, 2013, 09:08:39 PM
Looks like he was already beginning to slide.
Granted, the defensive player may have thought it would be tight, but these DBs need to be anticipating the slide.
Oh for sure. I was watching it at full speed and biased. As soon as I watched it a second time I knew it was a bad hit.
Huskies are actually playing a real team and winning unlike some of our other PAC-12 Brethren.
Just saw Johnny manziel's antics frim earlier. What a douche bag, I'm afraid I may have to start rooting for an injury.:(
Yeah, he's accelerated to Douchebag quite nicely.
Wyoming looked pretty good against a decent Husker offense, and looked more than good against a woeful Husker defense.
The Big Ten is gonna suck again this year, methinks. Even the anointed-NCG-participant Buckeyes looked very beatable.
Yeah, Buffalo didn't look completely inept against them. And from what I know about Buffalo, that is not a good sign.
Wyoming's D - last year a towering 117th in the nation - didn't actually look that bad. They might be in the top 100 this year.
Wyoming's O - now that was good to see. Brett Smith, the Wyo QB is on pace to be the best in Wyoming history, and there seems to be a running game.
A damn shame to lose to Nebraska, and there aren't any moral victories. I hope to Hod that this team plays this way the rest of year and gets 7 or 8 wins...
Still, the loss sucks.
Hey UTSA won @ New Mexico. :) http://espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?id=332430167 I'm not too sure they're going to win many more this season though. Oklahoma State is next, followed by Arizona in two bodybag games right before their C-USA schedule starts with UTEP and Houston.
UIW was properly welcomed up to 1AA from D2 with a 58-7 beat down. Ouch. http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=332412110
LOL, Towson beat UConn on the road, for a $275K payout. Maybe they can afford some more DPRK flags for campus.
Quote from: Berkut on September 01, 2013, 09:05:57 AM
Yeah, Buffalo didn't look completely inept against them. And from what I know about Buffalo, that is not a good sign.
They started an undrafted free agent from wazzu for gods sake.
Texas stunk it up for a bit in the first half before deciding to get serious and set a new record for total yards of offense. Probably nothing much to read into since New Mexico State is horrible. Even the defense looked like they could tackle which probably says volumes about NMSU rather than Texas.
Next: The Mormons in Mormonville.
QuoteBoston College brings back live bald eagle mascot after 47 years
In an effort to reconnect to its past, Boston College has brought back a symbol of America that has not been seen at an Eagles home football game in 47 years.
Through a partnership with Zoo New England, the school will have a live eagle mascot at all of their home football games at Alumni Stadium this fall. On game days, a 9-year-old bald eagle will be at the Flynn Recreation Complex on campus for fans to view and photograph. Boston College is asking fans on social media to come up with a name for the eagle via the Twitter hashtag #NameBCsEagle. The name will be announced when Florida State comes to Boston during Parents' Weekend on Sept. 28.
The last time Boston College had a live eagle mascot was from 1961 to '66 after three students lobbied to secure one, which resulted in a partnership with Franklin Park Zoo in Boston. The eagle resided at the zoo, which is owned by Zoo New England, except on game days. The current eagle also will live at Stone Zoo in Boston and then be transported to the campus for game days.
"It is time that we bring back some of our old traditions and create new ones," Boston College athletic director Brad Bates said in a statement. "We are fortunate to have a majestic and imposing mascot, and showcasing an eagle in ways that are inspiring and educational will provide an exceptional opportunity for our fans while connecting with our history."
"The bald eagle has been downlisted (from the endangered list) because of the conservation programs to bring it back, and that has simplified the process,'' Zoo New England president and CEO John Linehan told TODAY.com. "It's a great opportunity to showcase a magnificent bird to a whole new audience. It has such a great conservation success story, and it shows what people can do in bringing endangered species back when they set their minds to it.. Sometimes the conservation world can be full of frustrations and failures, but this is one of those great examples of success."
The new mascot will be kept on a handler's arm or on a stand at the Flynn Recreation Complex, and educational materials about the bald eagle will be distributed. The yet-to-be-named eagle is part of a live bird educational program at Stone Zoo and is used to working with bird handlers, according to Linehan.
The use of the live eagle mascot at Boston College was discontinued in 1967 after the death of the first mascot, named "Margo,'' in August of 1966. Sensitivities about a captured animal's welfare and stricter regulations against capturing endangered species resulted in the school employing a human mascot wearing an eagle suit.
The bald eagle, which is the national bird of the United States, was removed from the endangered species list by the federal government in 1995. Permits are still required to keep them in captivity in the U.S.
UDub comes in numbah #20 after thrashing of Boise St.
I'm glad Boise state lost. :)
Isn't everyone?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 01, 2013, 11:18:24 AM
LOL, Towson beat UConn on the road, for a $275K payout. Maybe they can afford some more DPRK flags for campus.
And it wasn't even close. Villanova was up on BC in their game at halftime, and William & Mary was ahead of West Virginia for most of that game. Could have been a trifecta for the CAA :lol:
The numbers are staying on the Horns helmets for the entire year. The players were 90% for it, apparently.
I thought they looked pretty good. The little Bevo head on the front of the jerseys wasn't so bad either.
Quote from: Berkut on September 04, 2013, 09:05:02 AM
Isn't everyone?
Not Drew Sharp, the Sportsweasel for the Detroit Free Press. He still has BSU ranked in the Top 25. Michigan, on the other hand, received no votes from him at all - and it's his alma mater!
WTF
BTW, if there is anyone here still not following Stuffing the Passer, the season 5 premiere is up, and is brilliant. http://houserockbuilt.blogspot.com/2013/08/stuffing-passer-season-5-premiere.html (http://houserockbuilt.blogspot.com/2013/08/stuffing-passer-season-5-premiere.html)
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 04, 2013, 09:50:09 AM
WTF
Not the sharpest (get it?) tool in the shed. He once wrote an entire column blasting Rush Limbaugh, based on the fake quote somebody put in the Limbaugh bio on wikipedia. At any non-British paper but the Freep, he'd have been fired years ago.
Someone apparently needs to slap the stupid out of Drew Sharp.
Oh here's his ballot: http://www.pollspeak.com/component/option,com_psreport/Itemid,3/lang,en/p,54/p_1,54/r,V/r_1,V/s,25/s_1,25/t1,0/t1_1,0/t2,0/t2_1,0/v,788/v_1,788/w,2/w_1,2/
He just doesn't want to seem like a homer, I am sure.
Quote from: Berkut on September 04, 2013, 10:05:05 AM
He just doesn't want to seem like a homer, I am sure.
He was fairly thoroughly humiliated in his reporting on Stretchgate, and I don't think he has given Michigan a vote since then.
Oklahoma is picked by 21 over WVU this week.
derspiess's lock of the week: do *not* take the points!
UTSA is playing hard, but they're just not good enough for Oklahoma State. Just missed an easy FG too, so that hurts. 21-7, 6something left in the half.
The U's D has been surprisingly effective against Gatorball.
Huh. UTSA is still fighting, but still getting smacked around. Just threw another TD pass to make it 49 - 28 with 9:20 to go. Way better than when it was 42-7 in the third.
56-35 final (TD pass by both teams after my last post). UTSA kept going until the end, but couldn't get the onside kick to take some more shots. There was actually a dude there to recover it, but the ball got snagged by a diving OSU player JUST before it crossed 10 yards and he was able to grab it.
Good: 503 yards of offense.
Bad: 608 yards of offense for the other team.
Stupid ass Ohio State.
I wish Dan McGwire and Marshall Faulk would parachute from the sky and fuck up these sweater vest monkeys.
Hmmmmm. Shannon Spake looks tasty in that short blonde hair today.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2013, 02:59:21 PM
Stupid ass Ohio State.
I wish Dan McGwire and Marshall Faulk would parachute from the sky and fuck up these sweater vest monkeys.
I feed on your hate. I'm gonna feed on it more when the Woverines feed on the corpse of DomerNation.
You're just crossing all sorts of lines today, peg leg.
I'll have the twins mindblast you.
They were obviously too busy mindblasting the sports editors at the Columbus Dispatch this week.
:lol:
Horns game is postponed due to shit weather in Provo.
Ol' Ball Coach should've kicked for 3 with 9 minutes left.
Wow, never knew Mark Harmon was Tom Harmon's son. That's cool.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2013, 07:07:09 PM
Wow, never knew Mark Harmon was Tom Harmon's son. That's cool.
Yep, and he's married to Pam Dawber (Mindy on Mork and Mindy). And his sister Kris was married to Ricky Nelson, so actress Tracy Nelson and the Nelson twins are his niece and nephews.
No wonder he's Mark Harmon.
Wyoming dominates 42-10. That's right, 42-10. Of course it was against mighty Idaho, but sometimes it feels good to just roll a team that is supposed to get rolled.
Next up - Mighty Northern Colorado.
Quote from: PDH on September 07, 2013, 07:52:25 PM
Wyoming dominates 42-10. That's right, 42-10. Of course it was against mighty Idaho, but sometimes it feels good to just roll a team that is supposed to get rolled.
Next up - Mighty Northern Colorado.
They're almost as bad as their neighbors WSU.
Diaz and his guys seem to be confused by the read option.
What a poopy day.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 07, 2013, 09:26:57 PM
Diaz and his guys seem to be confused by the read option.
Yeah considering that is BYU's entire offense that is amazing.
348 yards rushing...AT THE HALF. My favorite part was the two minute drill with nothing but runs.
Quote from: citizen k on September 07, 2013, 09:26:25 PM
Quote from: PDH on September 07, 2013, 07:52:25 PM
Wyoming dominates 42-10. That's right, 42-10. Of course it was against mighty Idaho, but sometimes it feels good to just roll a team that is supposed to get rolled.
Next up - Mighty Northern Colorado.
They're almost as bad as their neighbors WSU.
Yeah. A really bad Wyoming team beat them at home last year. This year it was no contest, 42-0 with 10 minutes left and a couple of garbage scores for Idaho. As a friend said to me "Idaho has a bend then break defensive scheme that doesn't seem to be working too well."
Quote from: Valmy on September 07, 2013, 09:44:24 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 07, 2013, 09:26:57 PM
Diaz and his guys seem to be confused by the read option.
Yeah considering that is BYU's entire offense that is amazing.
348 yards rushing...AT THE HALF. My favorite part was the two minute drill with nothing but runs.
Ouch
Quote from: PDH on September 07, 2013, 09:47:21 PM
Ouch
Yeah I really wanted them to pound the Mormons for you. Sorry Peedy :(
I see Manny didn't do the honorable thing and kill himself during halftime.
LOLZ
Someone from Shaggybevo is going to firebomb Bellmont tomorrow.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2013, 09:59:11 PM
LOLZ
No shit. This is hilarious. It seems Texas learned nothing from last season at all. Manny Diaz must have some compromising pictures of Mack Brown someplace.
Diaz just tells Sally that he likes her cookies. She makes Mack keep him.
Really though, the loss of Daje is really hurting the O. They should try to use Gray like that or something.
Hey there goes Grey right on cue. Nice catch by Davis now too.
Quote from: Valmy on September 07, 2013, 10:08:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2013, 09:59:11 PM
LOLZ
No shit. This is hilarious. It seems Texas learned nothing from last season at all. Manny Diaz must have some compromising pictures of Mack Brown someplace.
Actually, that "LOLZ" was posted approximately 15 seconds after Michigan's quarterback was pressured into the end zone, and instead of taking the safety, threw it right to an Irish defender for a TD.
But your post was good, too. :hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2013, 10:15:22 PM
Actually, that "LOLZ" was posted approximately 15 seconds after Michigan's quarterback was pressured into the end zone, and instead of taking the safety, threw it right to an Irish defender for a TD.
But your post was good, too. :hug:
They just showed that. Holy shit.
Also, the OL sucks ass. There is pressure even when they only rush three. Ash is having to scramble on almost every play.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2013, 10:15:22 PM
Actually, that "LOLZ" was posted approximately 15 seconds after Michigan's quarterback was pressured into the end zone, and instead of taking the safety, threw it right to an Irish defender for a TD.
But your post was good, too. :hug:
Hey more than one thing can be funny at any one time!
It's a shame Mich-ND is ending. Stupid move to the ACC. :mad:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2013, 09:35:36 PM
What a poopy day.
Shouldn't have put all that scratch on San Diego St.
USC lost to Wazzu.
Haha suck it Kiffen.
So, how about that Musburger-Eminem interview. Weird. :huh:
"I'm really uncomfortable right now"
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.minus.com%2Fif0MbPBjFTFP6.gif&hash=b113a7ddc8f936b88286ecd9a0e3b018a4e8e3d6)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2013, 10:36:51 PM
It's a shame Mich-ND is ending. Stupid move to the ACC. :mad:
Brian Kelly doesn't seem to mind.
This morning I am guardedly optimistic that Wyoming will win at least one game this season.
Quote from: Scipio on September 08, 2013, 06:23:48 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2013, 10:36:51 PM
It's a shame Mich-ND is ending. Stupid move to the ACC. :mad:
Brian Kelly doesn't seem to mind.
At least in theory, it makes his job easier. In practice, I think he will be in the NFL before the impact of the cancellation is seen.
I agree that it is a shame that the series is ending, but understand why ND picked Michigan to drop off their schedule. They are interested in getting into the playoff, and they were one difficult opponent too many (at least, in the years when they would have to play one of the better ACC teams). For recruiting purposes, it made more sense to keep the rotating "tough opponent" (Oklahoma last year and this, then Texas home and away) than to keep the Michigan game. Purdue and Staee give them the Midwest exposure they want without the same risk of losing.
Some reports of Manny Diaz being fired and replaced for the remainder of the season by Greg Robinson, who was already DC once before going on to fail in other places. Diaz was setting all sorts of records (of the wrong type) though, so just "bad" would probably be better than what is going on now.
E: SB Nation story: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/9/8/4706960/manny-diaz-texas-defensive-coordinator-fired
If GERG is the answer, the question is gibberish. Mack Brown is either a moron, wants badly to be fired this season, or else has a buyout clause that makes him unfireable.
None of those bode well for Longhorns fans.
As bad as he is with his meddling, I don't think Mack Brown will force a 3-3-5 defense on his 4-3 DC like RichRod did. He'll probably let him do what he did last time he was DC for Texas when they won a Rose Bowl (the first one). God knows he let Manny do whatever the fuck he wanted. Anyway, Robinson was already with the program with some title or another, so he's available and familiar with shit already vs. whatever dude they could bring in off the street during week three of the season.
E: It is confirmed. Diaz has been "reassigned." http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9651381/texas-longhorns-reassign-defensive-coordinator-manny-diaz
They've also dropped out of the top 25. Rightfully so: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9650564/texas-usc-tumble-ap-poll-losses
They're probably still going to lose to Ol Miss though.
Haha this came from Landthieves (OU board associated with Shaggybevo):
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi268.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fjj28%2FLouis6363%2FWhatlastnightamp_039sgameagainstBYUfeltlike-Imgur_zpsa43babdc.gif&hash=f3077d0bc0a13f4a57fad6190c2dce7abf71e2fd)
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2013, 02:37:03 PM
They are interested in getting into the playoff, and they were one difficult opponent too many (at least, in the years when they would have to play one of the better ACC teams).
"Better" and "ACC teams" is an oxymoron, at least until basketball season.
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2013, 06:53:47 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2013, 02:37:03 PM
They are interested in getting into the playoff, and they were one difficult opponent too many (at least, in the years when they would have to play one of the better ACC teams).
"Better" and "ACC teams" is an oxymoron, at least until basketball season.
Clemson can be considered decent, can't they? :unsure:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 08, 2013, 07:20:35 PM
Clemson can be considered decent, can't they? :unsure:
Miami too, unless this is the worst Florida team in decades.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2013, 04:50:11 PM
If GERG is the answer, the question is gibberish. Mack Brown is either a moron, wants badly to be fired this season, or else has a buyout clause that makes him unfireable.
GERG saved his ass in 2004. He is grasping at straws. But believe me as bad as GERG is, Diaz is worse. Diaz is the worst coach to ever coach at Texas and man...is that saying alot.
Mack Brown is completely out of touch, the game against Alabama unhinged him completely it has been quite the trainwreck since then.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 08, 2013, 05:13:48 PM
They're probably still going to lose to Ol Miss though.
The only way they beat Ole Miss was to outscore them, we knew this in the offseason. But that is looking like a much taller order than we thought. Especially with how putrid the Offensive Line is looking, even by the low standards that unit has operated under since 2006. The BYU defense was pouring through on every play, they might as well have been the Steel Curtain.
:( Maybe Fred Akers is still available. He took Wyoming to the Fiesta Bowl in 1976.
Tressel4DC.
Tressel still has that show cause, doesn't he?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 08, 2013, 09:34:02 PM
Tressel still has that show cause, doesn't he?
Yeah. I was just being silly. I don't think he'd want to leave that cushy job at Akron.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 08, 2013, 09:38:29 PM
I don't think he'd want to leave that cushy job at Akron.
Considering he'd be subject to extradition, I suppose not.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 08, 2013, 09:39:49 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 08, 2013, 09:38:29 PM
I don't think he'd want to leave that cushy job at Akron.
Considering he'd be subject to extradition, I suppose not.
Willis MacGahee wants to go after his knees.
Hey Valmy, you see that latest thing from Chip Brown? Apparently Robinson suggested stacking the box against BYU in order to make them throw the football, which....well that makes sense.
Instead, Diaz went with a 4-2-5. In order to make them run, I guess??????
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 08, 2013, 09:38:29 PM
Yeah. I was just being silly. I don't think he'd want to leave that cushy job at Akron.
No, I know he wouldn't be the DC and all that, was just wondering if that was still in effect. He's like...a consultant or something at Akron, isn't he? There were those weird rumors about him becoming the next president of the university too not that long ago.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 08, 2013, 10:27:06 PM
Hey Valmy, you see that latest thing from Chip Brown? Apparently Robinson suggested stacking the box against BYU in order to make them throw the football, which....well that makes sense.
Instead, Diaz went with a 4-2-5. In order to make them run, I guess??????
Yeah I did hear that. I mean it was not exactly rocket science, it was the exact same thing Virginia did to beat them. I have no idea what Manny was thinking, I mean I presume he is not a total idiot. I just do not get it.
But anyway Manny is gone and we get grumbler's favorite DC of all time as our stop gap guy I guess.
I mean, I know Diaz was prone to trying to be all blitz happy and the D was pretty complicated and all that, but I didn't know he was one of those guys who tries to get all cute like that. That would really explain a lot though. If Robinson comes in and just does basic things like "make a team that is kicking your ass on the ground throw the ball instead" I guess I'll be okay with that. At least he'll be doing something other than BLITZ
E: I wonder where they're stashing Diaz. Like if they're having him take over doing the video stuff Robinson was doing, or if he has been reassigned to his couch at home.
Maybe he's been reassigned to cleaning the stadium restrooms.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 08, 2013, 10:37:57 PM
E: I wonder where they're stashing Diaz. Like if they're having him take over doing the video stuff Robinson was doing, or if he has been reassigned to his couch at home.
The same place they stashed David McWilliams and John Mackovic I guess. I remember Mackovics job was designing Golf Courses. Considering how things went at Arizona he should have stayed in that position.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2013, 10:48:58 PM
David McWilliams and John Mackovic
Ah yes. The Longhorns coaches of most of my childhood and teenage years (I don't count Akers because I was like 6 when he left). 72-54-2. Truly a decade of excellence.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 07, 2013, 02:49:37 PM
56-35 final (TD pass by both teams after my last post). UTSA kept going until the end, but couldn't get the onside kick to take some more shots. There was actually a dude there to recover it, but the ball got snagged by a diving OSU player JUST before it crossed 10 yards and he was able to grab it.
Good: 503 yards of offense.
Bad: 608 yards of offense for the other team.
Does Arizona have any chance against them?
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2013, 11:24:41 PM
Does Arizona have any chance against them?
No. It's going to be a track meet with UTSA as the only participant.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 08, 2013, 11:08:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2013, 10:48:58 PM
David McWilliams and John Mackovic
Ah yes. The Longhorns coaches of most of my childhood and teenage years (I don't count Akers because I was like 6 when he left). 72-54-2. Truly a decade of excellence.
Sheesh, I'm old enough to remember Darrel Royal as the Longhorn's coach.
I never paid attention to them before Brown.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2013, 10:31:36 PM
But anyway Manny is gone and we get grumbler's favorite DC of all time as our stop gap guy I guess.
He'll be your favorite, too, when he breaks out the stuffed animals on the sideline (was he doing that goofy shit in his first stint there?). It is embarrassing, and the players fucking hate it.
I don't remember him doing that stuffed animal shit at Texas. I don't give a shit what he does as long as he can get them to play a bit better with whatever super basic D he's going to have to be using.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 09, 2013, 07:29:40 AM
I don't remember him doing that stuffed animal shit at Texas. I don't give a shit what he does as long as he can get them to play a bit better with whatever super basic D he's going to have to be using.
Nope, he's gonna use super advanced techniques like "stack the box" against the run.
Quote from: grumbler on September 09, 2013, 06:24:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2013, 10:31:36 PM
But anyway Manny is gone and we get grumbler's favorite DC of all time as our stop gap guy I guess.
He'll be your favorite, too, when he breaks out the stuffed animals on the sideline (was he doing that goofy shit in his first stint there?). It is embarrassing, and the players fucking hate it.
Eh at this point Mack Brown's rebuild project has been a failure. We need to end this charade and get to the next guy. So if Robinson is good again that would be great but if he shows up dressed in a bevo costume and dances on the sidline that is fine to.
Who the hell is Texas College, and how bad are they that they lost to Incarnate Word 69-0 on Saturday?
UIW: 525 total yards
Texas College: 71 :mellow:
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=332502916
Whatever. The Cardinals are 1-1 now. :pope:
Heh it is pretty telling the Michigan and Syracuse fans in Austin are calling in to the talk shows today just apalled that Greg Robinson has a job again. Somehow that just does not seem like justice to them.
At least all is rosy at Slippery Rock, where the QB went 27 of 48 passes for 465 yards and 6 TDs in a 51-36 victory over Barksdale.
I wonder if anyone but Michigan still announces that score at their home games. It was quite the fad there for a while.
Quote from: grumbler on September 09, 2013, 12:45:46 PM
At least all is rosy at Slippery Rock, where the QB went 27 of 48 passes for 465 yards and 6 TDs in a 51-36 victory over Barksdale.
I wonder if anyone but Michigan still announces that score at their home games. It was quite the fad there for a while.
Texas stopped doing it when our last stadium announcer guy retired I think.
Quote"If you watch tackling, every Saturday, tackling is bad across the country. I watch games all day Saturday morning. Nobody's tackling well ... Tackling is a problem in America right now. I'm not making excuses for us, we gotta tackle better."
Yes...Mack Brown said this in the press conference today. Hilarious, it sounded like a talk radio spoof.
From the FREEP:
QuoteMSU fans among most miserable
Michigan State is unbeaten to start the year. But how it got there has fans scratching their heads.
USA Today's Dan Wolken has the Spartans at No. 5 on his "misery index" following Week 2. MSU beat South Florida 21-6, but has now accumulated four defensive touchdowns, three by defensive end Shilique Calhoun, compared to just two offensive.
The four teams ranked ahead of 2-0 MSU — Texas, USC, Florida and Connecticut, in order — each have a loss.
"Sparty fan, we have heard you loud and clear," Wolken writes. "Moreover, after watching Saturday's 21-6 win over South Florida, we commiserate with your predicament. Not only do you have a humorless coach void of any semblance of personality, but your team's offense is a dumpster fire."
Ouch!
Ohio State band mocks Michigan
The marching bands of Michigan and Ohio State are fueling the rivalry two months early.
Last week at Michigan, the Wolverines' band mocked rival Ohio State with a script "OHNO" during its halftime performance.
The Ohio State marching band exacted revenge at halftime of the Buckeyes' 42-7 win over San Diego State on Saturday.
OSU staged a game show called "Are You Smarter Than a Wolverine?" — mashing together skits from The Price Is Right, Jeopardy, Family Feud, and Wheel of Fortune. The band learned the entire routine in just four days.
Unfortunately, we still have to wait until November for these two teams to duke it out.
Fifth most miserable today, but there's still a lot of season to go. You can do it, Sparty!
Last night Mack called an emergency meeting with the higher ups last night. Really emotional and surprise meeting. Not sure what it was about exactly yet but rumors are, of course, flying.
Lane kiffin announced his starting qb for Saturday. USC then said he would not discuss it with the media but would release a statement on YouTube.
Pete Carroll is laughing his ass off.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 09, 2013, 09:15:26 PM
Pete Carroll is laughing his ass off.
Indeed :lmfao:
QuoteUSC coach Lane Kiffin and his star receiver Marqise Lee appear to have a different version of the facts when it comes to whether the Trojans did or did not hold a 'players-only' meeting on Sunday.
Following this past Saturday's 10-7 loss to Washington State at the Coliseum, Lee told reporters that there would be a players' meeting the next day.
On Sunday, Kiffin said a meeting had not been held and reiterated it to the media again after practice on Tuesday.
But Lee, one of USC's team captains, said Tuesday that Kiffin was wrong, as these tweets attest:
Lindsey Thiry @LindseyThiry
Kiffin said there was no players-only meeting on Sunday. Marqise Lee just told us there was, "PLAYERS ONLY" Lee joked as he broke the news.
5:32 PM - 10 Sep 2013
Rich Hammond @RegisterUSC
USC held a players-only meeting Sunday, something Kiffin said he didn't think had happened.
5:41 PM - 10 Sep 2013
InsideUSC @InsideUSC
Marqise Lee said Lane Kiffin incorrect about players only meeting not happening. "Kiffin don't know," Lee said #USC
Who is to be believed?
Based on the track record of the parties involved, I'm going with Lee
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2013, 09:11:21 PM
Last night Mack called an emergency meeting with the higher ups last night. Really emotional and surprise meeting. Not sure what it was about exactly yet but rumors are, of course, flying.
Maybe Augie and Barnes can have some emergency meetings too. I'm just saying.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 11, 2013, 07:58:53 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2013, 09:11:21 PM
Last night Mack called an emergency meeting with the higher ups last night. Really emotional and surprise meeting. Not sure what it was about exactly yet but rumors are, of course, flying.
Maybe Augie and Barnes can have some emergency meetings too. I'm just saying.
Augie gets one more year. Barnes should have been fired years ago, I am looking forward to the 9-21 Barnes farewell tour this year.
The Toads and Tech are playing right now. Tech up 7-0.
Quote from: Valmy on September 11, 2013, 08:25:42 AM
Augie gets one more year. Barnes should have been fired years ago, I am looking forward to the 9-21 Barnes farewell tour this year.
:hide:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 12, 2013, 06:46:05 PM
The Toads and Tech are playing right now. Tech up 7-0.
Hell of a lot of smacking around going on tonight, too. Hell of a game.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2013, 09:05:36 PM
Hell of a game.
And another idiot drops the ball before crossing the plane to celebrate a touchdown. These kids will never learn.
Texas AD Deloss Dodds to step down at the end of 2013. All the fruits of regime change will soon hit Texas. I look forward to organizing my insurgency.
20 quatloos says the next AD is either Plonsky or Mack.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 13, 2013, 03:17:18 PM
20 quatloos says the next AD is either Plonsky or Mack.
Plonsky? OMG I think I actually would form an insurgency. She is horrible on the women's side.
Expect and prepare yourself for it to be Plonsky. That way you can't be disappointed with anyone they decide on. :)
Women as AD. :yucky:
Oh man, were the Zips ever hosed today.
Everything we thought we knew about Michigan this year is in question. Against Akron, it took Michigan a goal line stand at the end of the game to pull out a 28-24 win.
Gardner threw 3 Is. So much for the Heisman talk. Even worse, as a team, M was only 4 of 11 in 3rd down conversions.
I am a lot less confident about the second half of November than I was at noon today.
I gotta wait another 4 minutes of a bullshit Pitt blowout of New Mexico on the ACC Network before going to Alabama and A&M. And I thought the NFL had shit all fucked up.
Upon further review the booth has decided that no foul occured, however the penalty will stand. :lol:
Johnny Manziel looks like a math geek.
Game over man, game over!
Oregon and Tennessee having a contest to see whose uniform is most painful to look at. If they were playing in Boise the effect would be complete.
The flashy grey uniforms aren't doing Nevada any good, however. This new coach doesn't seem to be much good so far.
LOL, Rick Perry's "Texas" commercial.
LIMITED GUVMINT!
LOW TAXES!
FAIR LEGAL SYSTEM!
Makes me want to run down there and start a women's health clinic right now.
Heh, Nick Satan's defense has been figured out. They just can't put enough distance between them and Johnny Autograph.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2013, 05:52:29 PM
Heh, Nick Satan's defense has been figured out.
Just throw it toward the tall guy?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 14, 2013, 06:18:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2013, 05:52:29 PM
Heh, Nick Satan's defense has been figured out.
Just throw it toward the tall guy?
Yup. You do it enough times, they won't all be interceptions in the end zone. <_<
Gus Johnson just came
FUCKING FOX FOOTBALL ROBOTS RUIN MY FAN EXPERIENCE
I hate fox
Ah, Urban Meyer defenses. Always a tad undiciplined. Christ.
Purdue is really annoying me tonight. Stupid Chrissy Everett.
Huskies looking to close out Illinois. Score is 34-24
Starting RB gained 200yds on ground and like 64 more receiving.
Horns losing.
UTSA winning.
WTF
Hey I think I like the "ARIZONA" cut into the grass or whatever on the field there. Kinda cool. :)
I'm watching the ticker; what the hell's going on down in Texas? Why are the Fightin' Racists rolling up on 40 points? Is Texas' defense that much of a work in progress?
The D looked okay for a while in the first half (after giving up two quick TDs, they suddenly became relatively stout), and the Horns had rolled up 23 straight points. Then there was a pretty bogus targeting call that got "reversed" (dude wasn't ejected, but they got the yards anyway) which moved the Klan into FG range with 10ish seconds left. Ole Miss kept that momentum going into the second half, and just kept scoring TDs. One of them was a punt return.
Also Case McCoy is starting for Texas, and looked...not like Case McCoy at first, but seems to have returned to form now. Ash is apparently not even at the stadium with a concussion and some sort of shoulder injury.
E: Pom is still looking good, at least.
Welp. Arizona scored a TD at some point while I was watching Texas fuck around. UTSA running back was just running sideways along the first down line on 3rd down. :lol: He managed to pick it up while getting tackled, but damn that was really close (and I don't think he really got it). Nooooo INT
E: Hahaha what the fuck. Malcolm Brown (Texas RB) just knocked the ball out of Case McCoy's hand while he was winding up to throw it and caused a turnover. Team KKK is about to scores again, and the players look like they've given up already. Greg Robinson looks like he wants to kill himself.
Wow that's like the third pass that has bounced off an Ole Miss defender. One of them hit a DB in the face. Case needs to cut that shit out.
Thanks sbr.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2013, 09:57:12 PM
I'm watching the ticker; what the hell's going on down in Texas? Why are the Fightin' Racists rolling up on 40 points? Is Texas' defense that much of a work in progress?
More like a dumpster fire. Mack Brown's program is melting down right now. This is going to get ugly. I am definitely getting a 2010/1997 vibe right now.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 14, 2013, 10:06:17 PM
Greg Robinson looks like he wants to kill himself.
I know how he feels :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2013, 11:16:37 PM
More like a dumpster fire. Mack Brown's program is melting down right now. This is going to get ugly. I am definitely getting a 2010/1997 vibe right now.
Shit. They won 4 and 5 games those years. I'm struggling to find more than one or two more wins on the schedule this year. I got Kansas and maybe Iowa State? Kansas State hasn't been too good either, but they'll win anyway.
Welp. 31 - 6 Arizona. UTSA actually isn't playing that bad, but they're getting crushed on the scoreboard. The PAC12N dudes were even talking about it.
The only important Pac-12 teams already won today (Oregon and Washington :P )
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 14, 2013, 11:32:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2013, 11:16:37 PM
More like a dumpster fire. Mack Brown's program is melting down right now. This is going to get ugly. I am definitely getting a 2010/1997 vibe right now.
Shit. They won 4 and 5 games those years. I'm struggling to find more than one or two more wins on the schedule this year. I got Kansas and maybe Iowa State? Kansas State hasn't been too good either, but they'll win anyway.
Welp. 31 - 6 Arizona. UTSA actually isn't playing that bad, but they're getting crushed on the scoreboard. The PAC12N dudes were even talking about it.
You know, I heard that as well, but mostly thought they were full of shit. Arizona dominated the first half, especially on defense.
Quote from: katmai on September 14, 2013, 11:39:26 PM
The only important Pac-12 teams already won today (Oregon and Washington :P )
Dude, you cannot be a fan of them both. That isn't right.
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 12:09:03 AM
You know, I heard that as well, but mostly thought they were full of shit. Arizona dominated the first half, especially on defense.
Of course they actually weren't full of shit, and Arizona didn't dominate on D (unless UTSA did pretty well on D too?), since the teams weren't off by much in total offense at the half. UTSA was moving the ball just about as well as Arizona, except they were making more mistakes and weren't capitalizing on those yards. That's, you know, what they were talking about: What was going on in the game.
E: Heh. Touchdown UTSA.
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 12:09:28 AM
Quote from: katmai on September 14, 2013, 11:39:26 PM
The only important Pac-12 teams already won today (Oregon and Washington :P )
Dude, you cannot be a fan of them both. That isn't right.
I'm a fan of both of them when they're playing against USC.
What the fuck man. Why do the refs keep insisting on noting why there's no penalty for intentional grounding every time a QB throws the ball away? Is this something they do everywhere, or is it special for Arizona?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 15, 2013, 12:17:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 12:09:03 AM
You know, I heard that as well, but mostly thought they were full of shit. Arizona dominated the first half, especially on defense.
Of course they actually weren't full of shit, and Arizona didn't dominate on D (unless UTSA did pretty well on D too?), since the teams weren't off by much in total offense at the half. UTSA was moving the ball just about as well as Arizona, except they were making more mistakes and weren't capitalizing on those yards. That's, you know, what they were talking about: What was going on in the game.
E: Heh. Touchdown UTSA.
WEll, if you consider giving up 23 points in a half "pretty good on D" then yes, I guess UTSA was doing pretty good.
But if you watched the game, you would see that outside a nice opening drive for a FG, UTSA did pretty much nothing on offense in the first half, with just one other drive for more than 11 yards, and that one went for 49 and another field goal.
So UTSA had one good drive to open up the game, then one so-so drive, and otherwise Arizona dominated them. Total yards might have been kinda similar (I think Arizona had something like 190 to UTSA 140) but I thought the game was pretty much in control after those first couple drives.
Hmmm. Let me see what the actual drives were for UTSA...
11-58 FG
4-10 INT
3-7 Punt
11-49 FG
5 - -2 PUNT
6 -11 EOH
Yeah, that looks pretty much like being dominated by the defense.
Like I said, the announcers were full of shit. Saying the game was pretty even was a comment I would expect from someone who just glanced at the half time stats, missed the score, and didn't actually watch the game.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 15, 2013, 12:28:49 AM
What the fuck man. Why do the refs keep insisting on noting why there's no penalty for intentional grounding every time a QB throws the ball away? Is this something they do everywhere, or is it special for Arizona?
I dunno. The only time I would announce that would be to explain waving off a flag that was already on the ground.
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 12:39:38 AM
WEll, if you consider giving up 23 points in a half "pretty good on D" then yes, I guess UTSA was doing pretty good.
But if you watched the game, you would see that outside a nice opening drive for a FG, UTSA did pretty much nothing on offense in the first half, with just one other drive for more than 11 yards, and that one went for 49 and another field goal.
So UTSA had one good drive to open up the game, then one so-so drive, and otherwise Arizona dominated them. Total yards might have been kinda similar (I think Arizona had something like 190 to UTSA 140) but I thought the game was pretty much in control after those first couple drives.
Hmmm. Let me see what the actual drives were for UTSA...
11-58 FG
4-10 INT
3-7 Punt
11-49 FG
5 - -2 PUNT
6 -11 EOH
Yeah, that looks pretty much like being dominated by the defense.
Like I said, the announcers were full of shit. Saying the game was pretty even was a comment I would expect from someone who just glanced at the half time stats, missed the score, and didn't actually watch the game.
Or, you could have listened to what they said instead of going all :berkut: about it. They were only like 40-50 yards apart at the half, and noted the score could easily be much closer than it was. Because that was the truth.
You should keep going on about it though like Arizona was playing USC or something. :lol:
QuoteI dunno. The only time I would announce that would be to explain waving off a flag that was already on the ground.
Probably because they felt the Arizona fans needed the assistance. :) Seriously though, that shit was annoying and I've never come across a crew/ref that does that.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 14, 2013, 11:32:21 PM
Shit. They won 4 and 5 games those years. I'm struggling to find more than one or two more wins on the schedule this year. I got Kansas and maybe Iowa State? Kansas State hasn't been too good either, but they'll win anyway.
I only wish somebody would take footage of the Texas defense trying to tackle people from last season and this one and make a Yakety Sax video. That would make it all worth it.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2013, 12:51:33 AM
I only wish somebody would take footage of the Texas defense trying to tackle people from last season and this one and make a Yakety Sax video. That would make it all worth it.
Apparently, they're only #3 in missed tackles this year! Or at least they were before tonight's game. I don't know who the other (#1 and 2) teams were/are, but it must suck some serious ass watching those defenses.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 15, 2013, 12:46:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 12:39:38 AM
WEll, if you consider giving up 23 points in a half "pretty good on D" then yes, I guess UTSA was doing pretty good.
But if you watched the game, you would see that outside a nice opening drive for a FG, UTSA did pretty much nothing on offense in the first half, with just one other drive for more than 11 yards, and that one went for 49 and another field goal.
So UTSA had one good drive to open up the game, then one so-so drive, and otherwise Arizona dominated them. Total yards might have been kinda similar (I think Arizona had something like 190 to UTSA 140) but I thought the game was pretty much in control after those first couple drives.
Hmmm. Let me see what the actual drives were for UTSA...
11-58 FG
4-10 INT
3-7 Punt
11-49 FG
5 - -2 PUNT
6 -11 EOH
Yeah, that looks pretty much like being dominated by the defense.
Like I said, the announcers were full of shit. Saying the game was pretty even was a comment I would expect from someone who just glanced at the half time stats, missed the score, and didn't actually watch the game.
Or, you could have listened to what they said instead of going all :berkut: about it.
I did listen to what they said. They were wrong, as anyone actually paying attention and not wearing UTSA colored blinders to the game could see.
Quote
They were only like 40-50 yards apart at the half, and noted the score could easily be much closer than it was.
50 yards is quite a lot though for a half. And when you look at the drives, it wasn't even that close. UTSA had one good drive to open the game, and sputtered the rest of the time when they had the ball.
It could be much closer than it was...if UTSA wasn't dominated by Arizona. But they were, so it wasn't.
Quote
Because that was the truth.
The truth is that UTSA had two mediocre drives, and otherwise could not move the ball. The score reflected exactly that. While Arizona moved the ball at ease, and the main thing stopping them on offense was the endzone.
UTSA had the ball 7 times, and scored 2 field goals. Two drives with 58 and 49 yards for field goals, rest of their drives were 10, 7, -2, and 11 yards.
Arizona had the ball 6 times, scored 3 TDs on drives of 82, 34, and 53 yards. FG on a drive of 48 yards. 2 3 and out drives of 2 and 9 yards. How you can say that is vaguely close is rather puzzling.
Quote
You should keep going on about it though like Arizona was playing USC or something. :lol:
No, they were playing a incredibly young Conference USA team that they should dominate without too much trouble, and that is just what they did. Arizona looks pretty decent through three games, but we don't really know if they are going to be a Pac-12 contender, since they haven't played anyone of Pac-12 caliber yet. The game against Washington next week will tell us a lot.
How is saying that Arizona had no trouble against UTSA claiming that they are playing USC? What are you going on about?
:lol: Okay dude, whatever. Arizona is awesome. You are awesome. I have taken off my UTSA colored blinders (??) and see the light. You are right, and all the guys on the TV box are wrong. There is no way it could have been 23-14 at the half. Not a chance at all. They were just making things up to placate the UTSA fanbase that wasn't watching the game because the vast majority of them don't get the PAC12N.
I'm somewhat worried about what is going to happen to you when Arizona plays non directional school.
E: Anyway, one of the missed tackles leaders ahead of the Horns is supposedly Northwestern. Seems strange to me. Do they suck on D?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 15, 2013, 01:06:42 AM
:lol: Okay dude, whatever. Arizona is awesome. You are awesome. You are right, and all the guys on the TV box are wrong. There is no way it could have been 23-14 at the half. Try not to stroke out about it, okay? I'm mildly worried about what is going to happen to you when Arizona plays non directional school.
Why are you being such a douchebag?
I never said Arizona was awesome, I said they easily handled UTSA. Unless UTSA has some amazing offense, that doesn't make Arizona awesome.
The talking heads who are paid to blab were wrong. That is ok - they often are. Not agreeing with them doesn't make me delusional. They are paid to blab, and they have to say something, and in this case what they said was simply bullshit. As I've shown with actual stats and figures and such.
Why this is worthy of you getting your feelings all hurt about I do not know. It's not like anyone expected UTSA to go to Arizona and have a real shot. The game went pretty much as expected, right?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 15, 2013, 01:06:42 AM
I'm somewhat worried about what is going to happen to you when Arizona plays non directional school.
Arizona will win, in which case I will be happy.
Or Arizona will lose, in which case I won't be happy.
Either way, the guys paid to blab will blab, and likely say something that isn't really accurate, and I will disagree with them. Whether or not you get all butt hurt because someone disagrees with what a couple third rate announcers say or not we likely won't know, since it won't be a UTSA game, I suppose.
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 01:14:50 AM
Why are you being such a douchebag?
Fuck you, jerkoff.
QuoteI never said Arizona was awesome, I said they easily handled UTSA. Unless UTSA has some amazing offense, that doesn't make Arizona awesome.
The talking heads who are paid to blab were wrong. That is ok - they often are. Not agreeing with them doesn't make me delusional. They are paid to blab, and they have to say something, and in this case what they said was simply bullshit. As I've shown with actual stats and figures and such.
Why this is worthy of you getting your feelings all hurt about I do not know. It's not like anyone expected UTSA to go to Arizona and have a real shot. The game went pretty much as expected, right?
How about you tell me how there was no way it could have been 23-14 at the half like they were talking about. That's all they were saying, and all I was really talking about just as an aside about the local team doing better than expected, and what you felt the need to start babbling about because ERMAGERD WRONG, you enormous tool.
Quote from: BerkutArizona will win, in which case I will be happy.
Or Arizona will lose, in which case I won't be happy.
Either way, the guys paid to blab will blab, and likely say something that isn't really accurate, and I will disagree with them. Whether or not you get all butt hurt because someone disagrees with what a couple third rate announcers say or not we likely won't know, since it won't be a UTSA game, I suppose.
I dunno, someone might say something WRONG and you'll stroke out and be a bitch again.
Do you think I'm some sort of UTSA superfan? Are you stupid?
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 01:00:39 AM
50 yards is quite a lot though for a half.
That's much closer than it should be.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2013, 01:25:02 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 01:00:39 AM
50 yards is quite a lot though for a half.
That's much closer than it should be.
Not really.
Arizona scored TDs on 3 of their 6 posessions. When you score a TD, you cannot get any more yards on that drive.
The only thing surprising was that opening UTSA drive, which was rather nice...but still did not get them into the endzone.
Otherwise, Arizona scored pretty much at will, and stopped UTSA everytime they had the ball.
I never felt like the game was even remotely in doubt after the first exchange of series. It was clear UTSA was outmatched.
ANYWAYYYYS
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 01:31:56 AM
It was clear UTSA was outmatched.
They were horribly outmatched. I don't know a whole lot about C-USA this year, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were outmatched in every game this year. They had to come from behind vs
New Mexico of all teams. I mean, I know they have Bob Davie out there now and all (heh), but I don't think New Mexico is all that good. Then again...well shit they did win, and there's nothing wrong with that.
E: Bob Davie is 5-11 at New Mexico. That's actually not that bad, considering that's more wins than they had in the previous like...5 years combined or something.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 15, 2013, 01:20:45 AM
Quote from: BerkutArizona will win, in which case I will be happy.
Or Arizona will lose, in which case I won't be happy.
Either way, the guys paid to blab will blab, and likely say something that isn't really accurate, and I will disagree with them. Whether or not you get all butt hurt because someone disagrees with what a couple third rate announcers say or not we likely won't know, since it won't be a UTSA game, I suppose.
I dunno, someone might say something WRONG and you'll stroke out and be a bitch again.
If someone says something wrong, and I mention it, will you start cussing and screaming and going on and on and on and on about it?
The announcers were wrong. YOU were wrong. If me using actual stats to show that, rather than just ranting and raving like you are doing makes me "a bitch" I suppose I can live with that. I've been called worse by opther super tough internet dudes.
Quote
Do you think I'm some sort of UTSA superfan? Are you stupid?
I have no idea. You sure seem to be getting really upset that I disagreed with your claim that "Arizona didn't dominate on D" and "UTSA was moving the ball just about as well as Arizona", both of which are rather clearly simply not true.
Is there some other reason you are so emotionally caught up in the comments that you are willing to act so unpleasant over them?
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 01:35:20 AM
If someone says something wrong, and I mention it, will you start cussing and screaming and going on and on and on and on about it?
I don't know. Will it involve you calling me a douchebag?
QuoteThe announcers were wrong. YOU were wrong. If me using actual stats to show that, rather than just ranting and raving like you are doing makes me "a bitch" I suppose I can live with that. I've been called worse by opther super tough internet dudes.
You acting like a bitch makes you a bitch. I don't know about super tough internet dudes or whatever, just that you're being a bitch. Sorry, guy. Sucks to be you, I guess.
QuoteI have no idea. You sure seem to be getting really upset that I disagreed with your claim that "Arizona didn't dominate on D" and "UTSA was moving the ball just about as well as Arizona", both of which are rather clearly simply not true.
Is there some other reason you are so emotionally caught up in the comments that you are willing to act so unpleasant over them?
Yeah, maybe next time don't be calling people douchebags and/or acting like a prick about a throwaway post. OR, and this is just an idea, you
could just go fuck yourself. How's that? Want to talk more about it, or do you want to move on? Because I can keep pointing out that you're a bitch and telling you to go fuck yourself for....well I can keep that up for a while.
E: And yeah, they were right, and you're dead-ass wrong. It was a lot closer than it should have been, and could have been even closer. Fuck you and fuck Arizona. :)
Well, you certainly have proven that you can in fact go on and on acting like a douchebag. Congrats on that at least.
Concession accepted. :)
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 01:31:56 AM
Not really.
Arizona scored TDs on 3 of their 6 posessions. When you score a TD, you cannot get any more yards on that drive.
The only thing surprising was that opening UTSA drive, which was rather nice...but still did not get them into the endzone.
Otherwise, Arizona scored pretty much at will, and stopped UTSA everytime they had the ball.
I never felt like the game was even remotely in doubt after the first exchange of series. It was clear UTSA was outmatched.
Of course it wasn't in doubt. Of course UTSA was outmatched. That's why a UTSA fan can look at the silver lining that they allowed 3 touchdowns instead of 5 or 6.
So Wisconsin got hosed? I'm starting to see some angry posts in various places.
Something about a player giving himself up, but Arizona State players jumping on the ball and not moving while time ran out or some such?
E: And something about Arizona State players trying to call a time out with Wisconsin in FG range? What the hell was going on in that game?
E2: Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-ELRub8n7s
Whistle blows, ASU dudes jump all over the ball, ref takes all remaining time to set the ball. Seems like.....seems like it shouldn't have taken 14 seconds for them to get the ball spotted, and those ASU players shouldn't be able to jump on the ball and delay things like that. Delay of game?
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 12:09:28 AM
Quote from: katmai on September 14, 2013, 11:39:26 PM
The only important Pac-12 teams already won today (Oregon and Washington :P )
Dude, you cannot be a fan of them both. That isn't right.
i hate the ducks, just was trolling you.
Quote from: katmai on September 15, 2013, 02:08:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 12:09:28 AM
Quote from: katmai on September 14, 2013, 11:39:26 PM
The only important Pac-12 teams already won today (Oregon and Washington :P )
Dude, you cannot be a fan of them both. That isn't right.
i hate the ducks, just was trolling you.
OK, fair enough. You caught me.
Fucking Oregon. At least they bitch slapped a SEC team.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 15, 2013, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 01:31:56 AM
Not really.
Arizona scored TDs on 3 of their 6 posessions. When you score a TD, you cannot get any more yards on that drive.
The only thing surprising was that opening UTSA drive, which was rather nice...but still did not get them into the endzone.
Otherwise, Arizona scored pretty much at will, and stopped UTSA everytime they had the ball.
I never felt like the game was even remotely in doubt after the first exchange of series. It was clear UTSA was outmatched.
Of course it wasn't in doubt. Of course UTSA was outmatched. That's why a UTSA fan can look at the silver lining that they allowed 3 touchdowns instead of 5 or 6.
OK. I thought the UTSA run defense looked pretty good. They had some good interior linemen.
Their pass defense, not so much.
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 02:16:52 AM
OK. I thought the UTSA run defense looked pretty good. They had some good interior linemen.
Their pass defense, not so much.
Their DBs suuuuuck (I think they're just small and slow. "just").
The team as a whole seems a bit undersized too. I don't follow them except to check in on games and such, but they have a lot of little dudes running around out there, it seems like. They were talking about their 165lb safety during this game, IIRC. That's crazy.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BULy_aiCQAAkXVB.jpg)
Okay, so after this, the whistle blew with :15 left. ASU players then jumped on the ball (like it was a fumble) with :12 left, then after they got them off at :04, the ref kept Wisconsin from being able to snap the ball until there was (less than, because it hit one then he moved back) :01 on the clock. Hosed.
Well, I think the ASU players can legitimately say they thought there was a fumble, it certainly looked like it.
What a mess. Why was he taking a knee anyway? Why didn't they just spike it or do whatever it was they were trying to do on the next play? 14 seconds is pretty close to be trying shit like centering the ball.
I think they were trying to center it, then spike it, then kick the FG. Spiking doesn't move the spot, right?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 14, 2013, 09:53:45 PM
Horns losing.
UTSA winning.
WTF
Hey I think I like the "ARIZONA" cut into the grass or whatever on the field there. Kinda cool. :)
Hotty Toddy, Mack Brown. Time to retire and grow that pony tail you've always wanted.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 15, 2013, 01:18:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 01:14:50 AM
Why are you being such a douchebag?
Fuck you, jerkoff.
College football turns some many Languishites into a Grumpus Gus on Saturdays. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 15, 2013, 06:46:43 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 15, 2013, 01:18:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 01:14:50 AM
Why are you being such a douchebag?
Fuck you, jerkoff.
College football turns some many Languishites into a Grumpus Gus on Saturdays. :(
Burger does get a bit too intense over his football.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 15, 2013, 06:53:20 AM
Burger does get a bit too intense over his football.
Yeah, but...[spoiler]it's just UTSA[/spoiler]. :unsure: :ph34r:
:blink:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxZmFCl4.jpg&hash=92aa778444c8c712973d9e172630ae7c7276427e)
Quote from: Berkut on September 15, 2013, 01:14:50 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 15, 2013, 01:06:42 AM
:lol: Okay dude, whatever. Arizona is awesome. You are awesome. You are right, and all the guys on the TV box are wrong. There is no way it could have been 23-14 at the half. Try not to stroke out about it, okay? I'm mildly worried about what is going to happen to you when Arizona plays non directional school.
Why are you being such a douchebag?
I never said Arizona was awesome, I said they easily handled UTSA. Unless UTSA has some amazing offense, that doesn't make Arizona awesome.
The talking heads who are paid to blab were wrong. That is ok - they often are. Not agreeing with them doesn't make me delusional. They are paid to blab, and they have to say something, and in this case what they said was simply bullshit. As I've shown with actual stats and figures and such.
Why this is worthy of you getting your feelings all hurt about I do not know. It's not like anyone expected UTSA to go to Arizona and have a real shot. The game went pretty much as expected, right?
This is just the way MBM rolls. Remember earlier when I pointed out that the Big 12 lost 4 teams, and he went all "you motherfucker" on me? Ignore it. He is rational most of the time, which makes him the exception here.
Wyoming played the University of Northern Colorado Bears on a rainy, flooded day in Laramie. Wyo came out slowly, but soon built up a lead. The star QB rolled his ankle on the third play, but still there were almost 500 yards of offense and two pick sixes. Final score: 35-7 Wyoming (covering the spread) and moved to 2-1 with that only loss being the 3 pointer in Lincoln...
...and Wyoming fans are upset. This was a team that was 0-4 last year after losing to a Iaa school. This was a team that couldn't find their asses last year, the 117th ranked defense...
Well, it is a reminder that fan is short for fanatic.
Quote from: Berkut on September 14, 2013, 10:48:28 PM
Thanks sbr.
No problemo. :)
How did the game go, looked like USTA kept it close.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 15, 2013, 06:46:43 AM
College football turns some many Languishites into a Grumpus Gus on Saturdays. :(
Hey, call me a douchebag on Tuesday and see what happens. I don't need to have big conversations about something some dudes on a network halftime show said.
QuoteYeah, but...it's just UTSA. :unsure: :ph34r:
:lol: They can actually play some winnable games now (and still lose). Houston is their last OOC game.
Quote from: grumblerThis is just the way MBM rolls. Remember earlier when I pointed out that the Big 12 lost 4 teams, and he went all "you motherfucker" on me? Ignore it. He is rational most of the time, which makes him the exception here.
You didn't point out the Big 12 lost four teams. You pointed out that you didn't know about the Grant of Rights. :D
<----My avatar thing over there has a scroll bar now. Or it does for me.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 15, 2013, 11:22:03 AM
You didn't point out the Big 12 lost four teams. You pointed out that you didn't know about the Grant of Rights. :D
:D Still playing that losing hand, eh? Given that the Big Ten has used the Grant of Rights for decades now, and it has been discussed on B10 boards by knowledgeable posters for years now, I'd guess I know more about it than someone who didn't know the term two years ago!
But go ahead and insist that you are right in spite of the evidence. And throw in the ad homs, because they are amusing.
Quote from: grumbler on September 15, 2013, 01:08:28 PM
:D Still playing that losing hand, eh? Given that the Big Ten has used the Grant of Rights for decades now, and it has been discussed on B10 boards by knowledgeable posters for years now, I'd guess I know more about it than someone who didn't know the term two years ago!
But go ahead and insist that you are right in spite of the evidence. And throw in the ad homs, because they are amusing.
No one said you didn't know about GoR's in general, just that you didn't know about the fact that the Big 12 had one. It was pretty obvious that you didn't. Because if you did, you wouldn't have said what you did, because it didn't make even a little bit of sense in that context. You were insisting that some teams might still leave the Big 12. If you knew about the GoR, you'd have known that this would mean they would lose the rights to their TV $$ for the length of the GoR. Yep. That's going to happen. DIDN'T WANT THAT $20+ MILLION ANYWAY! The entire conference would have to dissolve to get out of it. You didn't say that either though, of course. You didn't say that because you didn't know there was one. You
did start talking about the conference TV rights like they were the same as they had been when the four teams left though. Again, this was because you didn't know they weren't because of the new GoR they had just signed. You know it's okay to not know everything, right? Like, it's not a big deal that you didn't know about the Big 12 GoR. You can admit it and it would be fine.
E: AP TOP 25:
Quote1. Alabama (59)
2. Oregon (1)
3. Clemson
4. Ohio State
5. Stanford
6. LSU
7. Louisville
8. Florida State
9. Georgia
10. Texas A&M
11. Oklahoma State
12. South Carolina
13. UCLA
14. Oklahoma
15. Michigan
16. Miami
17. Washington
18. Northwestern
19. Florida
20. Baylor
21. Ole Miss
22. Notre Dame
23. Arizona State
24. Wisconsin
25. Texas Tech
E: Way later: Lolz ShaggyBevo got hacked by some...group....
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyH01xRb.png&hash=91adc6c76a018a9945703113438b3319bf926ec1)
They had their message about Muslims in Myanmar being abused or whatever. :lol:
I suppose I've always known the order of magnitude, but it just struck me how small the AP panel is.
Quote from: Scipio on September 15, 2013, 06:44:48 AM
Hotty Toddy, Mack Brown. Time to retire and grow that pony tail you've always wanted.
It was time to retire after the OU game last year. Now it is just getting sad.
Quote from: grumbler on September 15, 2013, 01:08:28 PM
:D Still playing that losing hand, eh? Given that the Big Ten has used the Grant of Rights for decades now, and it has been discussed on B10 boards by knowledgeable posters for years now, I'd guess I know more about it than someone who didn't know the term two years ago!
But go ahead and insist that you are right in spite of the evidence. And throw in the ad homs, because they are amusing.
Um what you said was that the Big 12 was still unstable and MBM said it was stable now because of the grant of rights. Not sure what you were right about and what he was wrong about.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2013, 04:50:07 PM
It was time to retire after the OU game last year. Now it is just getting sad.
I'm starting to wonder if he'll ever actually retire/step down or if they'll have to just fire him to make him go away.
Zook4Longhorns
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 15, 2013, 01:25:52 PM
No one said you didn't know about GoR's in general, just that you didn't know about the fact that the Big 12 had one. It was pretty obvious that you didn't. Because if you did, you wouldn't have said what you did, because it didn't make even a little bit of sense in that context. You were insisting that some teams might still leave the Big 12. If you knew about the GoR, you'd have known that this would mean they would lose the rights to their TV $$ for the length of the GoR. Yep. That's going to happen.
But, of course, your statement is not true. If a team wanted to leave the Big 12 tomorrow, it could do so. They would sue to get their TV rights back, and then the courts would determine what the cost of that would be. This is the exact case that faced the rumblings from Penn State about leaving the the Big Ten, and was discussed at length by people who know about this stuff.
The Grant of Rights just gives the conference additional leverage (because it likely raises the costs beyond the old exit fee); it isn't a magic bullet, as you believe.
Quote from: grumbler on September 15, 2013, 05:00:45 PM
But, of course, your statement is not true. If a team wanted to leave the Big 12 tomorrow, it could do so. They would sue to get their TV rights back, and then the courts would determine what the cost of that would be. This is the exact case that faced the rumblings from Penn State about leaving the the Big Ten, and was discussed at length by people who know about this stuff.
The Grant of Rights just gives the conference additional leverage (because it likely raises the costs beyond the old exit fee); it isn't a magic bullet, as you believe.
Well fortunately the Big 12 has few schools outside of Texas anybody else still wants so I think they are good. If OU had little interest I doubt somebody is going to swoop in to grab might West Virginia and Texas Tech.
Quote from: grumbler on September 15, 2013, 05:00:45 PM
But, of course, your statement is not true. If a team wanted to leave the Big 12 tomorrow, it could do so. They would sue to get their TV rights back, and then the courts would determine what the cost of that would be. This is the exact case that faced the rumblings from Penn State about leaving the the Big Ten, and was discussed at length by people who know about this stuff.
The Grant of Rights just gives the conference additional leverage (because it likely raises the costs beyond the old exit fee); it isn't a magic bullet, as you believe.
And you said this in the last thread, right? Oh wait, no you didn't. Because you didn't know about them needing to do all this massively expensive shit, because when you bleated out your initial comment, you thought it was the same as when the other teams left with just an exit fee. You confirmed that you thought this with your next comments. You also never mentioned who, exactly, is going to be doing this stuff that you didn't mention.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2013, 05:02:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 15, 2013, 05:00:45 PM
But, of course, your statement is not true. If a team wanted to leave the Big 12 tomorrow, it could do so. They would sue to get their TV rights back, and then the courts would determine what the cost of that would be. This is the exact case that faced the rumblings from Penn State about leaving the the Big Ten, and was discussed at length by people who know about this stuff.
The Grant of Rights just gives the conference additional leverage (because it likely raises the costs beyond the old exit fee); it isn't a magic bullet, as you believe.
Well fortunately the Big 12 has few schools outside of Texas anybody else still wants so I think they are good. If OU had little interest I doubt somebody is going to swoop in to grab might West Virginia and Texas Tech.
You might want to watch out for the ACC. They'll take anybody--after all they took Pitt.
Quote from: dps on September 15, 2013, 05:05:31 PM
You might want to watch out for the ACC. They'll take anybody--after all they took Pitt.
Damn. Iowa State is as good as gone.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2013, 04:51:59 PM
Um what you said was that the Big 12 was still unstable and MBM said it was stable now because of the grant of rights. Not sure what you were right about and what he was wrong about.
What I said was that ND may have preferred the ACC because it seemed more stable (and, in fact, when made the comment, the B12 had eight teams, and then added 2 more, which doesn't define "stable" for me - the Big Ten added two more teams as well, so it's membership wasn't stable either). All the rest of it was bogus arguments about "pacts of steel" and name-calling. I don't mind the name-calling and bogus arguments; I find them funny.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 15, 2013, 05:05:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 15, 2013, 05:00:45 PM
But, of course, your statement is not true. If a team wanted to leave the Big 12 tomorrow, it could do so. They would sue to get their TV rights back, and then the courts would determine what the cost of that would be. This is the exact case that faced the rumblings from Penn State about leaving the the Big Ten, and was discussed at length by people who know about this stuff.
The Grant of Rights just gives the conference additional leverage (because it likely raises the costs beyond the old exit fee); it isn't a magic bullet, as you believe.
And you said this in the last thread, right? Oh wait, no you didn't.
:huh: I said just that:
QuoteThe grant of rights/assignment of rights that the Big 12 schools have signed is the same as the Big Ten and Pac Ten/Twelve have used for years. What it means is that the school that leaves doesn't take its TV money with it. Clearly, it gives the conference a lot more leverage to make a departure expensive if it wants, which is why conferences want them. It doesn't make departure impossible, though.
QuoteBecause you didn't know about them needing to do all this massively expensive shit, because when you bleated out your initial comment, you thought it was the same as when the other teams left with just an exit fee. You confirmed that you thought this with your next comments. You also never mentioned who, exactly, is going to be doing this stuff that you didn't mention.
I also said in that thread
QuoteAnd, please, tell me more about what I know and why I post what I post. I love that stuff.
It still applies. :lol:
Care to resume the name-calling, and to tell me again that you will never again respond to anything I post? :rolleyes:
I forgot about the fake Dan Beebe account.
QuoteGOOD NIGHT EVERYBODY AND ENJOY YOUR SWEET DREAMS OF INTERIM HEAD COACH GREG ROBINSON
Ow.
Quote from: grumbler on September 15, 2013, 05:20:02 PM
What I said was that ND may have preferred the ACC because it seemed more stable (and, in fact, when made the comment, the B12 had eight teams, and then added 2 more, which doesn't define "stable" for me - the Big Ten added two more teams as well, so it's membership wasn't stable either). All the rest of it was bogus arguments about "pacts of steel" and name-calling. I don't mind the name-calling and bogus arguments; I find them funny.
Yes, you were talking about ND joining, etc (also lol at trying to turn it so you were talking about adding two members the next month as being "unstable"). Here is what you said that was responded to:
Quote from: youPlus, the Big 12 is still pretty shaky membership-wise, unlike the fairly solid ACC.
Quote from: meThey just signed a 13 year grant of rights along with their new TV deal. The Big 12 isn't even remotely shaky.
Quote from: valmyShaky membership wise? How can that be possible? Not only did every single unhappy school already leave but everybody signed their rights away for 13 years. Whereas in the ACC the football schools are pissed off about them bringing in more and more Basketball schools and a couple of them voted against the exit penalty. This baffles me. Is this a troll?
Quote from: youReally? I thought they had lost 4 teams in the last 2 years. Must be the other Big 12 Conference I am thinking of.
Quote from: meAgain, they just signed a 13 year grant of rights. So, yes. Really. Could you possibly be more of a douche about it?
Quote from: valmyIs this 2010? Thats weird I thought it was 2012.
Quote from: ovbGrumbler is a complete idiot that spouts off shit that is undeniably wrong on a regular basis. If you call him on it he just reverts to douchebag troll mode and becomes even more unbearable than you might have previously thought possible.
He's also never once admitted he's ignorant of anything. Like in this case if he remotely understood that the Big XII members had signed a 13 year grant of rights and what that actually means he'd never have said membership is shaky.
The only thing that could kill the Big XII would be Texas and Oklahoma leaving, which just looks highly unlikely. Texas makes the most money of any FBS school in the Big XII so have no incentive to move elsewhere, and no other conference would permit them the institutional influence and control. Oklahoma probably isn't 100% happy in the Big XII but from what I can see Oklahoma politics would dictate that OU take OSU with them wherever they go, which makes it hard for OU to find a home (I don't know how true that is, and I'll openly admit to that.)
Quote from: youDunno why you are so butthurt about the Big 12's problems. Yeah, they just signed a TV deal, but they had a TV deal when they lost 1/3 of their membership. You can feel free to argue that the Big 12 looks as stable for the future as the ACC, but don't expect everyone to buy it.
And so on. I was wrong, however, because you
did finally start talking about lawsuits three or four pages in, and finally mentioned a GoR about 4 pages into the discussion. You pretty clearly had no idea what was going on up to that point though. OvB pointed that out with his google-fu comment. I like how you were calling the ACC stable too, except that apparently adding members means they aren't stable, and so....wait what? Bottom line: If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't have said several of those things. Sorry big guy. You're just not going to be able to grumbler your way out of that. It's okay though. Like I said before, it's fine not to know everything. Happens to everyone.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 15, 2013, 04:56:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2013, 04:50:07 PM
It was time to retire after the OU game last year. Now it is just getting sad.
I'm starting to wonder if he'll ever actually retire/step down or if they'll have to just fire him to make him go away.
that is no way to talk about grumbler :(
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2013, 05:02:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 15, 2013, 05:00:45 PM
But, of course, your statement is not true. If a team wanted to leave the Big 12 tomorrow, it could do so. They would sue to get their TV rights back, and then the courts would determine what the cost of that would be. This is the exact case that faced the rumblings from Penn State about leaving the the Big Ten, and was discussed at length by people who know about this stuff.
The Grant of Rights just gives the conference additional leverage (because it likely raises the costs beyond the old exit fee); it isn't a magic bullet, as you believe.
Well fortunately the Big 12 has few schools outside of Texas anybody else still wants so I think they are good. If OU had little interest I doubt somebody is going to swoop in to grab might West Virginia and Texas Tech.
I still want to give TAMU back.
Met a guy that came into the shelter along with his family this morning wearing a Pitt jersey.
Made some chit chat about their game yesterday...turns out he played two seasons for Pitt way down on the depth chart; left before his third year, as he was bumped out of the backfield with the addition of some hotshot new high school phenom by the name of Dorsett. :lol:
By the looks of what he was driving, he definitely had better success off the field.
Mark May drinks whale cum.
Hey MBM I thought you might enjoy this:
http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2013/9/16/4739334/mack-brown-apologizes-for-66-17-loss-to-ou-next-month (http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2013/9/16/4739334/mack-brown-apologizes-for-66-17-loss-to-ou-next-month)
Quote"I don't know exactly what we'll do wrong to allow Oklahoma to beat us," admitted Brown. "I'll have to go back and watch the tape, which I won't be able to do until October, after we lose the game."
"But, whatever the specific reason turns out to be, one thing's for sure: the players and coaches won't do our job," said Brown. "And that's on me."
But Brown will not be entirely to blame for his team's looming 66-17 defeat, according to Brown. Other factors the Texas coach believes will play a role in Texas's latest embarrassment include poor execution by the players, lack of preparation by assistant coaches, suboptimal hotel accommodations, distracting Longhorn Network obligations, gloomy cloud cover and/or blinding sunlight, the inequitable distribution of tackling plaguing American society, negative nellies, social media, option football, that one punt return for a touchdown that just killed us, the Rothschilds, and trying too hard.
And always classy in defeat, Coach Brown credited Oklahoma for their preparation and inspired play.
"You have to give credit to Oklahoma," said Brown
This one just writes itself really.
:lol:
Goddammit.
The Boise State - Fresno State game was really entertaining. Or is, but Fresno is taking knees, so barring disaster they've won 41-40. Nice.
Yeah, fun game.
Dear god, why did Vandy back out of playing Ohio State? Their replacements are being vaporized in a borefest. :bleeding:
48-0 in the second? Yikes. I wonder how much FAMU is making off of the game.
Only fun bit was the Umpire being stiff armed by Jordan Hall.
Today is the 2nd Annual Fucking Howdy Doody Game - Wyoming vs Air Force. Astute readers will remember last year when the Wyoming coach went off the rails after the Air Force coach apparently had his QB fake an injury when coming off the field after losing his helmet.
I expect good times tonight. I just wish the university would license "Fucking Howdy Doody" T-shirts.
UDub up 21-0 with few mins left in 1st Qtr.
Still wish they weren't scheduling FCS teams.
LOL @ Va Tech
I don't care if they eventually win
35-0 with 13 mins left in 2nd.
Huskies may match Ohio St score at this rate.
Well...at least Maryland is easy to see with those uniforms.
Arizona @ Washington next week should be pretty good.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 21, 2013, 03:12:43 PM
Well...at least Maryland is easy to see with those uniforms.
Even easier to see that scoreboard.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 21, 2013, 06:32:19 PM
Even easier to see that scoreboard.
I switched over to the Rutgers - Arkansas game after the pick 6 that made it 14-0. Looked like it was gonna be a snoozefest for everyone except Maryland fans. And I guess WVU fans would be pretty pissed about it too.
Nice opening "drive" for the Horns. :rolleyes:
Huh. They.....Kansas State has to punt on their opening drive, despite running the read option a couple times. PROGRESS!
E: lolz from Shaggybevo:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVzMjTyc.gif&hash=9fe094ea961f993ac2059a950d524667bd811df3)
How about them Wolverines!
Quote from: katmai on September 21, 2013, 09:17:03 PM
How about them Wolverines!
Oh, my, I foresee a lot of schadenfreude on Facebook tomorrow. :cool:
Edit: May have spoke too soon; but still four turnovers :face:
Hmmmmm. Horns up 24-7 going into the 4th Q, but KState has the ball in the redzone.
UTSA up 25-13 with 12:00 or so left in the game, but UTEP keeps punting from midfield, pinning them inside their own 10.
31-14 Texas now. KState seems to be really bad this year. The Horns lost David Ash and Jordan Hicks tonight though. Ash with the same concussion stuff as two weeks ago, Hicks with...whatever it is this year. I think they said something with his ankle.
UTSA - UTEP still sitting on the same score with 6:25 left. UTSA on UTEPs 30 or so though so that's good.
I'm holding you responsible for these Wyoming Uni's Peedee!
I was just about to say something about that. :lol:
The Horns finally get the win, I go grab a new beer, see Wyoming is playing AF, turn it on, and damn
UTSA ended up winning 32-13 in their first C-USA game. Not bad.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 21, 2013, 10:57:10 PM
I was just about to say something about that. :lol:
The Horns finally get the win, I go grab a new beer, see Wyoming is playing AF, turn it on, and damn
UTSA ended up winning 32-13 in their first C-USA game. Not bad.
YEah flipping between that game and the Battle for Utah.
Nice TD run by Honor. Service, Integrity, and Leadership need to be careful about the celebration though. :mad:
Quote from: katmai on September 21, 2013, 10:56:22 PM
I'm holding you responsible for these Wyoming Uni's Peedee!
I prefer their white unis over these Army-digital-meets-Holstein shoulder pads. Probably leaves acid trails when you stare at them long enough, looking for the hidden ship picture in it.
Those uniforms are a travesty. Still, the play is amazing.
FUCKING HOWDY DOODY THAT HALF
That kid from BYU was down on the field for a while.
Brett Smith is god.
I don't think Wyoming can blow this lead, even against the Chair Force's vaunted and cutting-edge 1954 triple option.
<insert FW:
[email protected] email delivery failure gag here>
Wyoming can blow any lead...trust me. Still, they look good tonight.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2013, 12:03:55 AM
I don't think Wyoming can blow this lead, even against the Chair Force's vaunted and cutting-edge 1954 triple option.
<insert FW: [email protected] email delivery failure gag here>
:lol:
Quote from: katmai on September 21, 2013, 09:17:03 PM
How about them Wolverines!
As I mentioned last week, they aren't the offensive team everybody thought they were. Defense is good, but not good enough to score multiple TDs in conference play.
I already predicted a Michigan loss against NW and one other; I would up that to probable losses against NW and MSU, with the OSU game likely a third conference loss.
There is a strange thing in Cowboy-land. A thing called hope. There is an offense that is damn good, and a defense that is suddenly adequate (up from awful). Next week at Texas State will tell a lot about this program - are the UWyo Cowboys able to get it done? Will they rank up there with some of the better teams of memory? Will this be another collapse after a promising start?
Wyoming fans are long suffering. Hopes are high now, but we all remember other years where the wheels came off...hell, the wheels start off most years but the descent is so steep the team is like a soapbox derby car sliding down K2.
I am cautiously pessimistic about my optimism.
I was just on Texas State campus today after not having been by in about a decade. Man did they ever upgrade that stadium. I look forward to checking it out on my Longhorn Network Peedee.
If only Wyoming had been able to pull it off against Nebraska.
Hicks is done for the year, valmy. Not surprised, but it still totally Sucks.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 22, 2013, 07:52:51 PM
Hicks is done for the year, valmy. Not surprised, but it still totally Sucks.
For real? Holy...
That was quite a costly victory last night. After a second head injury I am wondering if Ash might not be done for the year as well.
Burst Achilles, it seems. Having (maybe already had) surgery on it.
Re: Ash: I know he gives them the best chance to win compared to Case and all that, but I want them to shut him down for a while, if not the whole season. He's only a junior in college, and is going to need a brain that isn't complete mush, no matter if he ends up in the NFL or not.
You two should be discussing Redskins and Texans failings instead.
NFL losses aren't particularly important at this stage in the season.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2013, 08:47:30 PM
You two should be discussing Redskins and Texans failings instead.
What is there to say? They made Chip Kelly look good. How embarrasing.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 22, 2013, 08:46:18 PM
Re: Ash: I know he gives them the best chance to win compared to Case and all that, but I want them to shut him down for a while, if not the whole season. He's only a junior in college, and is going to need a brain that isn't complete mush, no matter if he ends up in the NFL or not.
Given what we know about head injuries now compared to even 15 years ago, it's almost criminal if they don't shut him down for a while.
Had my first college game as a 'R' today. I liked it a lot. I like being in charge.
Quote from: dps on September 22, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
Given what we know about head injuries now compared to even 15 years ago, it's almost criminal if they don't shut him down for a while.
Mack is trying to save his job though, so.....
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 22, 2013, 09:43:53 PM
Quote from: dps on September 22, 2013, 09:19:32 PM
Given what we know about head injuries now compared to even 15 years ago, it's almost criminal if they don't shut him down for a while.
Mack is trying to save his job though, so.....
Rumor is they rushed him out there this week against the advice of some of the medical staff. Not sure if that is true but nothing much would suprise me about Mack Brown these days.
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2013, 09:30:17 PM
Had my first college game as a 'R' today. I liked it a lot. I like being in charge.
Awesome! Did any of the coaches scream at you at all?
Quote from: Valmy on September 22, 2013, 09:49:01 PM
Awesome! Did any of the coaches scream at you at all?
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on September 22, 2013, 09:48:26 PM
Rumor is they rushed him out there this week against the advice of some of the medical staff. Not sure if that is true but nothing much would suprise me about Mack Brown these days.
"It's all about the kids!" It's probably naive of me to say/think this, but they
should shitcan him just for that, if true. A coach shouldn't knowingly be putting the health, both current and long term, of his players at risk in order to protect his own job.
Quote from: Valmy on September 22, 2013, 09:49:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2013, 09:30:17 PM
Had my first college game as a 'R' today. I liked it a lot. I like being in charge.
Awesome! Did any of the coaches scream at you at all?
Not really. It was a very smooth game.
Only bitch was the visiting team coach complained about a roughing the QB call on his best DE, said he was being held.
Grats Berkie!
Opening line has Huskies favored by 7
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 22, 2013, 10:18:10 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 22, 2013, 09:48:26 PM
Rumor is they rushed him out there this week against the advice of some of the medical staff. Not sure if that is true but nothing much would suprise me about Mack Brown these days.
"It's all about the kids!" It's probably naive of me to say/think this, but they should shitcan him just for that, if true. A coach shouldn't knowingly be putting the health, both current and long term, of his players at risk in order to protect his own job.
Yeah, if Brown over-ruled the medical staff on this, it should be reason enough to fire him--it's certaubkt worse abuse than locking Craig James' son in a closet or whatever it was.
And if the medical staff actually did clear him, maybe they should be fired. Like I said, it's different than it was even a few years ago. Back then, if a guy could answer the questions, "What's your name? What year is it? What town are you in", then he'd be cleared--and some doctors weren't to concerned if the guy answered correctly, just that he answered at all. We know better now.
Thought I posted pretty much this comment before. Maybe I posted it in the wrong thread?
Quote from: katmai on September 22, 2013, 11:35:36 PM
Grats Berkie!
Thanks!
Quote
Opening line has Huskies favored by 7
Sounds about right.
If Arizona is as good as hoped, anyway.
If not...
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2013, 11:50:53 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 22, 2013, 11:35:36 PM
Grats Berkie!
Thanks!
Quote
Opening line has Huskies favored by 7
Sounds about right.
If Arizona is as good as hoped, anyway.
If not...
I am very wary of Arizona cause of the game last year and saw they are 3-0, but then saw the foes to start the season. :P
Quote from: katmai on September 23, 2013, 12:06:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2013, 11:50:53 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 22, 2013, 11:35:36 PM
Grats Berkie!
Thanks!
Quote
Opening line has Huskies favored by 7
Sounds about right.
If Arizona is as good as hoped, anyway.
If not...
I am very wary of Arizona cause of the game last year and saw they are 3-0, but then saw the foes to start the season. :P
Yeah, but UTSA totally played them close. It was a very near run thing, if you ignore the score, the stats, and didn't watch the game. :P
I just mean throw out the FCS teams they each played and you have UNLV and UTSA vs Boise St and Illinois.
But still until i see they can deal with Carey ( by that i mean keep him under 150 :P ) I think will be a fun game.
E:
Quote from: dpsThought I posted pretty much this comment before. Maybe I posted it in the wrong thread?
You mean the whole thing about Mack or the "criminal if they don't shut him down" post? If you're thinking about Mack, I haven't seen it the NCAA thread here, but Ash has "only" had the concussion since the BYU game two weeks ago, and just got "cleared," or supposedly cleared...I think Wednesday or Thursday. He wasn't on the sidelines for the Ole Miss beatdown, supposedly because the noise and lights were a problem for him, so it wouldn't have been in last years thread, at least. Maybe in the NFL thread?
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2013, 12:22:09 AM
Yeah, but UTSA totally played them close. It was a very near run thing, if you ignore the score, the stats, and didn't watch the game. :P
:lmfao: Those halftime comments from the PAC-12 Network guys really bothered you, didn't they? Guess there was something to them after all if you're still thinking about them (even if you aren't quite getting them right, but that's okay). But yeah, those guys probably didn't watch the game and ignored everything about the team that is part of the conference that they represent in favor of some nobodies from several hundred miles away because
No, they didn't bother me at all - I get some mild amusement from pointing out when talking heads are wrong.
What has paid off even more though is your watching your tempter tantrums at someone proving you wrong, even about such a trivial matter. I can see it will be the gift that just keeps on giving.
And you have proven "me" wrong, how? You bugged out about some dudes talking about how the score in a game could have easily been much closer. They even pointed out why: If the team that was losing hadn't made certain mistakes, it could have easily been 24-14 or even, without some really stupid penalties, 17-14. They also noted how much closer the offensive yardage was than it should have been.
None of those statements were incorrect. Why you would be so upset about your team overcoming some adversity and taking advantage of those mistakes is a little baffling to me.
Most of the surprise, for everyone except you, I guess, was because of expectations coming into the game. I, for example, figured Arizona would be up by at least 30 at the half. Most everyone probably did. They weren't. Most everyone probably expected UTSA to be shut down and Arizona to roll up and down the field on them until the backups came in. They didn't. Most everyone probably didn't expect UTSA to give Arizona it's first deficit of the season either, even if they screwed it up and had to kick a FG from the 20 or so. It's really too bad UTSA did make those mistakes, even though they wouldn't have mattered in the end. I suspect your mouth would be firmly clamped shut about this if they hadn't. That's why they're UTSA though, of course, instead of <insert big name successful BCS program here>.
By all means though, point out what is wrong about any of this.
Yeah, everyone thought Arizona would be up by 30 at the half....like Vegas who had Arizona winning the game by 20something. That must be "everyone".
And....Arizona won by exactly the spread. Clearly it was so much closer than expected.
Rage on.
Well I guess people don't think as highly of your team as I do. Is that all you've got though? The Vegas spread?
E: Wait, so....it was Arizona -25? 30 at the half then eventually cruising to a 20-25 point win with the backups in isn't exactly unheard of, is it? For comparison, I'm seeing Oklahoma State -28.5.
Right, so "everyone" thought Arizona would be up 30 at the half. I think the Vegas spread is pretty good at refuting the claim that "everyone" thought they would be up by even more than the game spread at half time. It is in fact, "all I've got" but like all the states I've pointed out, it is considerably more than you've got, since all you've got is a foul mouth and a temper.
Yep, that sure does prove your point.
Arizona won the game by exactly what was expected. They were up at the half by about what the spread expected.
That game was never close after the initial drive, the talking heads who made their comments were wrong, which is no big deal, and the only reason we are even talking about it still is how funny it is that you went all emorage over me pointing out that they, and you, were wrong.
It is a cliche that the "game was close than the score". Sometimes it is a correct cliche, and sometimes not. This time, as I proved with stats and numbers and such, was the latter case.
But again, that is not nearly as interesting as you getting all hysterical over it. Keep on keeping on, it really is fun. How soon do you start cussing and swearing?
No one is getting hysterical over it, you just brought it up again for no reason, so it must be bothering you.
But yeah, if you're trying to use the Vegas spread and a comment from me about how I thought they'd be winning by more before the game, and that's all you got, then I don't know what to tell you, except that maybe you should move on.
The Pac-12 Network guys were exactly right when they said it could have been closer than it was. This doesn't mean that the score was really close. You get that, right? They were talking about a hypothetical situation where UTSA doesn't make those mistakes and we're looking at a 24-14 or 17-14 score at the half. The pointed out that the two teams were only separated by 30 or 40 total yards of O at the half and all that. These are valid points that you still haven't countered, most certainly not with stats, because those are the stats. UTSA was mistake prone and unable to capitalize on those numbers they put up. Arizona wasn't. You can see those mistakes in the penalties and, for example, that hilariously bad throw for an INT.
As a side note, if you don't want me to start "cursing and swearing," you probably shouldn't call me a douchebag, so maybe you should pump the brakes on that garbage right now. Post 388, if you're curious. Now, I'll admit, I did call grumbler a douche in much the same way, but that was last year, and grumbler isn't you, is he?
I brought it up again because it was funny when you got so mad that you started cussing and swearing the first time you were proven wrong.
I am not going to rehash proving them and you wrong, the numbers are all still there, and anyone who actually understands football can see that they were wrong.
You doubled down on the "everyone thought they would be winning by 30 at the half" comment, which, again, was totally wrong. As proven by the actual spread, which is in fact the numeric determinant of what in fact "everyone" who actually knows anything about football actually thinks. Arizona ended up winning by exactly the spread, so apparently "everyone" other than you pretty much knew what was expected, and that is exactly what happened.
I've countered every point that matters, which isn't saying much, but no matter.
Watching you get so bent out of shape over such a throw away comment is much more amusing than anything else. You just cannot let it go, can you?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 23, 2013, 01:37:33 AM
As a side note, if you don't want me to start "cursing and swearing," you probably shouldn't call me a douchebag, so maybe you should pump the brakes on that garbage right now. Post 388, if you're curious. Now, I'll admit, I did call grumbler a douche in much the same way, but that was last year, and grumbler isn't you, is he?
As a side, side note, if you don't want to be called a douchebag, don't act like a douchebag. See the post that I quoted you on. You acted like a complete douchebag after I pointed out, rather politely I might add, that you and the talking heads were wrong, and that Arizona had no real trouble with UTSA, and that it didn't mean much.
I specifically said I had no idea if Arizona was any good, and you started in with "
Okay dude, whatever. Arizona is awesome. You are awesome. You are right, and all the guys on the TV box are wrong. "And of course all that bullshit about me saying they were playing USC or something. Which of course I never said anything of the kind.
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2013, 01:45:19 AM
I brought it up again because it was funny when you got so mad that you started cussing and swearing the first time you were proven wrong.
Again, post 388. That's not my name there calling someone a douchebag. That's yours.
QuoteI am not going to rehash proving them and you wrong, the numbers are all still there, and anyone who actually understands football can see that they were wrong.
I really did just point out the stats, and still all you're saying is "the numbers are there." They are, that's why the PAC12N guys, and now me, are actually pointing them out.
QuoteYou doubled down on the "everyone thought they would be winning by 30 at the half" comment, which, again, was totally wrong. As proven by the actual spread, which is in fact the numeric determinant of what in fact "everyone" who actually knows anything about football actually thinks. Arizona ended up winning by exactly the spread, so apparently "everyone" other than you pretty much knew what was expected, and that is exactly what happened.
I doubled down on it? It was what I was expecting, and again, I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove with this particular line of argument, since all you know about it is what I was expecting at halftime, instead of the entire game. The first time I mentioned that was like two posts ago though, so maybe you shouldn't really latch on to that, when this whole thing is about what PAC12 representatives said.
QuoteI've countered every point that matters, which isn't saying much, but no matter.
"They're wrong" doesn't really seem to work though.
QuoteWatching you get so bent out of shape over such a throw away comment is much more amusing than anything else. You just cannot let it go, can you?
I don't know, you tell me. You're the one who brought it all back up in the first place.
E: I guess since you're freaking out about the 30 point lead at the half comment, I should note that I figured this game would be more like the Oklahoma State game. Huge lead at the half for Arizona, then UTSA makes some moves against the backups and makes it semi-respectable (and maybe beat the spread like against OSU).
Quote from: Berkut on September 23, 2013, 01:47:18 AM
As a side, side note, if you don't want to be called a douchebag, don't act like a douchebag. See the post that I quoted you on. You acted like a complete douchebag after I pointed out, rather politely I might add, that you and the talking heads were wrong, and that Arizona.
I specifically said I had no idea if Arizona was any good, and you started in with "Okay dude, whatever. Arizona is awesome. You are awesome. You are right, and all the guys on the TV box are wrong. "
If you don't want to be called a jerkoff, don't act like a jerkoff? But yeah, those guys were right with their hypothetical scenario. Just because you got butthurt about it and didn't like it doesn't change that. Or, and answer honestly, would you be talking about this even a little bit if it was 17-14 at the half,
like they were saying?
Why is your font getting smaller and smaller? Are you just slamming around on the keyboard while telling me I'm all mad or whatever?
For Ed:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvZFTCuJ.gif&hash=5a6be7282d8aff05d42055aa722b9a10f530a972)
I feel bad for laughing. That poor guy just got caught in the wrong place. Was he okay?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 23, 2013, 12:41:27 AM
E: Quote from: dpsThought I posted pretty much this comment before. Maybe I posted it in the wrong thread?
You mean the whole thing about Mack or the "criminal if they don't shut him down" post? If you're thinking about Mack, I haven't seen it the NCAA thread here, but Ash has "only" had the concussion since the BYU game two weeks ago, and just got "cleared," or supposedly cleared...I think Wednesday or Thursday. He wasn't on the sidelines for the Ole Miss beatdown, supposedly because the noise and lights were a problem for him, so it wouldn't have been in last years thread, at least. Maybe in the NFL thread?
No, not that one, but the follow-up about overruling the medical staff.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 23, 2013, 02:35:40 AM
I feel bad for laughing. That poor guy just got caught in the wrong place. Was he okay?
He did the right thing by stopping, dropping and rolling.
That's Berkut in another 15 years.
I wonder if tv talking heads have ever said a game is closer than it looks to keep people from changing the channel.
Meh, the NFL is a bit different, where the pros will give up when they're losing and the leaders will sit pat (except Belichick, who will run up the score), but I don't fall for that in college ball. A 21-point swing in 3 minutes could happen at any time in college ball. That's part of what makes it so awesome.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 23, 2013, 02:35:40 AM
I feel bad for laughing. That poor guy just got caught in the wrong place. Was he okay?
They said Kenny Guiton checked on him and he was up waddling for the PAT.
Did that ref bounce off another guy offscreen before pingponging between 2 and 19?
Quote from: dps on September 23, 2013, 05:27:25 AM
No, not that one, but the follow-up about overruling the medical staff.
Oh, no, I don't remember seeing that here.
QuoteI wonder if tv talking heads have ever said a game is closer than it looks to keep people from changing the channel.
Nah, it wasn't that much of a blowout to make the fans of the two teams get bored and switch for good, but the outcome wasn't ever in doubt. They weren't saying anything like UTSA should have had the lead or could win this game or anything like that. More of a wtf is Arizona doing type deal and UTSA doing better than expected (e: They were mostly/only really talking about UTSA's two 11 play drives and the total yardage between the two teams only being like 30-50 yards apart).
vv Ah okay, it just looked like he was flying in after getting popped by someone else vv
The ump. got in the way of Hall in the open field. He was stiff armed by 2(Jordan hall) then ran over by the A&M kid. It was hilarious live.
Eh heh heh heh I found video from overhead instead of a gif. I know he was trying to get out of the way of the OL that's coming down the field and is going to murder him if he doesn't move, but it still looks like he was taking a pretty good angle on Hall to get the tackle. :lol:
Well, that is why they moved the U to the offensive backfield in the NFL. I've been surprised that college has not followed suit.
Mike Leach to Paul Petrino:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.nextimpulsesports.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2Fleacheffu.gif&hash=05fb998bb369537caa8aea20f35ad8484c33cc19)
(Leach put his starters back in at the end of the game when Idaho was inside the 10 to preserve the shutout, Paul wasn't happy)
Quote from: BerkutWell, that is why they moved the U to the offensive backfield in the NFL. I've been surprised that college has not followed suit.
It's been that way in the NFL for, what, two-three years now? It really seems to be working out nicely. I remember there were some stats I was looking at prior to that change showing injuries to officials in the NFL, and I was kind of surprised (then wasn't so surprised when I thought about it) at the numbers. I don't know where I got them from, etc, but it would be interesting to know if the number of injuries had gone down. I know it's still going to happen occasionally, but not having an unprotected dude out there right in the middle of all the shit has to help things, right?
I am so glad we got RichRod instead of Leach...
Mike Leach. :wub:
Leach is pulling the kind of shit that comes back to haunt. Ask Woody about going for two when ahead 50-14! :lol:
Yeah, if Arizona had hired Leach, I imagine I would be a Leach fan, but I would much rather go the high road than the low.
Leach is perfect for WSU. I am just glad he didn't go to ASU, since he does the low road very well. Much better to have ASU have a coach who is bad at doing it than one that is good at it.
Quote from: grumbler on September 23, 2013, 06:17:47 PM
Leach is pulling the kind of shit that comes back to haunt. Ask Woody about going for two when ahead 50-14! :lol:
Putting in your starters to preserve a shut out is hardly the same thing.
Besides this was not some conference rival but Idaho. Meh.
Idaho couldn't even manage a field goal from the 10?
I side with preserving the shut out.
Quote from: Valmy on September 23, 2013, 07:54:14 PM
Besides this was not some conference rival but Idaho. Meh.
Yeah. Even Wyoming beat Idaho.
QuoteOne never quite knows what direction a press conference with Washington State head coach Mike Leach is going to go in.
On Monday, after fielding a few run-of-the-mill questions concerning the Cougars' previous game, their next game and how he thinks certain players are performing, Leach was asked about ... first date advice in Pullman, Wash. Which he was happy to weigh in on.
"Try to have somewhere where there's not salad, because girls will try to show off and act like all they eat is salad, so try to put them somewhere where they're in a position where they have to put real food in their mouth," Leach told those gathered, according to The Spokesman-Review. "Because if you can make her eat she'll talk. Other than that it's all this pretention and stuff like that.
"The key thing is make her eat, then she'll relax, then there'll be some dialogue and you can get to know her and see if you're interested in dating her beyond dinner."
It was the same mantra he offered a Texas Tech freshman when asked a similar question five years ago.
Leach then recalled taking his wife to A&W on their first date and using a 2-for-1 coupon book for it, which he recommended for others:
"It worked for me. You'll cut the weak out of the lineup right away if you do it that way. You'll only be involved with committed people if they're going to do the coupon book. It doesn't hurt. If you're just trying to dress your life up a little and pretend you have a relationship, then maybe you don't want to use the coupon book if it's some kind of a volume deal.
"But if you want to zero in on one or two, break out the coupon book, saw off the weak right off the top so you can get down the path to find the right one. It's worked out pretty good, because I've been married ... I can't remember, a long time. Thirty years or something."
Why a television producer hasn't thought to feature Leach in a dating advice show is beyond us.
Quote from: grumbler on September 23, 2013, 06:17:47 PM
Leach is pulling the kind of shit that comes back to haunt. Ask Woody about going for two when ahead 50-14! :lol:
Yeah, that shit was a punk move. Much more satisfying doing it the Bobby Bowden way: "not my fault your 1st stringers can't do anything against my 3rd stringers"
Idaho's 1st stringers put up 10 points on Wyoming's 3rd stringers :(
Idaho has a more robust recruiting machine than Wyoming. But that should change, what with the neato Holstein digital camo unis.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 23, 2013, 09:04:01 PM
Idaho has a more robust recruiting machine than Wyoming. But that should change, what with the neato Holstein digital camo unis.
The square camo grey nightmare bullshit unis only come out vs Air Force. Or maybe if Wyoming goes to the Bell Helicopter Bowl.
This week Wyoming wears white on white. I long for a nice Brown and Gold uniform this year, what with that being the school colors and all...
The whites look wholesome and virtuous. Squee.
Quote from: PDH on September 23, 2013, 09:10:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 23, 2013, 09:04:01 PM
Idaho has a more robust recruiting machine than Wyoming. But that should change, what with the neato Holstein digital camo unis.
The square camo grey nightmare bullshit unis only come out vs Air Force. Or maybe if Wyoming goes to the Bell Helicopter Bowl.
This week Wyoming wears white on white. I long for a nice Brown and Gold uniform this year, what with that being the school colors and all...
What do school colors have to do with football uniforms?
Fucking Nike whores
Quote from: katmai on September 24, 2013, 12:01:57 AM
Fucking Nike whores
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffashionista.com%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F06%2FNike%25E2%2580%2599s-Make-Yourself-team-shot-by-Annie-Leibovitz.jpeg&hash=549d9b20fbc6e06fde0f55080a26c6e0882d10a7)
:perv:
Air Force fans (though not the coach nor players, publicly) are saying that the Wyoming uniforms were meant as disrespectful to the Academy. While they were awful, the only disrespect was to Wyoming Traditions - U Wyo wore the same jerseys last year in the Howdy Doody Game I.
The Academy boosters are also mad that the Wyoming band traveled the 4 hours to Colorado Springs and played "Ragtime Cowyboy Joe" when Wyoming scored and did a little bit of the same when Wyoming got a 1st down - just like the band does at home. They said it was demeaning to the Air Force. Well, Wyoming did score an awful lot, and they did get a bunch of first downs - I tend to thing rather than planned disrespect it was more in the vein of Wyoming being a better team.
What has college football become? I don't know if I should root for a bunch of thugs like Wyoming.
Quote from: Syt on September 24, 2013, 12:11:21 AM
Quote from: katmai on September 24, 2013, 12:01:57 AM
Fucking Nike whores
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffashionista.com%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F06%2FNike%25E2%2580%2599s-Make-Yourself-team-shot-by-Annie-Leibovitz.jpeg&hash=549d9b20fbc6e06fde0f55080a26c6e0882d10a7)
:perv:
Pass. On all of them.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 08:58:29 PM
Pass. On all of them.
Dunno...2, 3, and 5 have potential.
Quote from: PDH on September 24, 2013, 09:03:23 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2013, 08:58:29 PM
Pass. On all of them.
Dunno...2, 3, and 5 have potential.
I'm being very picky tonight, even though my Neurontin has given me a super boner.
This is beyond outrageous! :ultra: :ultra: :ultra:
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/24/ncaa-to-reduce-scholarship-sanctions-on-penn-state/related/
QuoteNCAA to reduce scholarship sanctions on Penn State
Posted by John Taylor on September 24, 2013, 11:46 AM EDT
Bill O'Brien AP
Penn State's — and state lawmakers' — prolonged fight with the NCAA over historic sanctions levied on the football program is about to bear some fruit.
The NCAA announced Tuesday that, "[d]ue to Penn State University's continued progress toward ensuring athletics integrity," its executive committee has agreed to gradually restore scholarships the football program had lost in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sex-abuse scandal. The move to restore scholarships, arguably the most crippling of the sanctions, was based on a recommendation by George Mitchell, who had been hired by the NCAA as an independent "integrity monitor.".
The original sanctions called for a cap of 15 scholarships beginning in 2013 and running through 2016; the NCAA limit at the FBS level is 15. Additionally, whereas FBS programs are permitted 85 scholarship players, the Nittany Lions would be allowed just 65.
The new directive from the NCAA, however, will allow Penn State to increase by five its scholarships in 2014, increasing to the full allotment of 25 the following year. The program will be back up to its full allotment of 85 scholarship players beginning in 2016 — at least two full years ahead of what the original sanctions had called for — after moving to 75 in 2014 and 80 in 2015.
"The decision is the result of a thoughtful and deliberative process to ensure we reached the most appropriate outcome," said Rita Hartung Cheng, who chaired the recent Executive Committee meetings regarding Senator Mitchell's annual report and chancellor of Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. "During our discussions, we had the benefit of engaging with Senator Mitchell's expert perspective and the views of our Big Ten colleagues."
Other sanctions, including a four-year bowl ban and $60 million fine, remain in place, although the press release stated that the NCAA "may consider additional mitigation of the postseason ban in the future depending upon Penn State's continued progress."
Even if the bowl ban remains in place, the restoring of scholarships is by far the biggest win for the football program in general and head coach Bill O'Brien specifically. That specific sanction has crippled O'Brien and his coaching staff on the recruiting trail; the additional scholarships will now allow the program to make bigger inroads in the recruiting game, the lifeblood of any program, and begin scaling back its "run-on" program beginning as early as this recruiting cycle.
O'Brien has been a big part of the progress over the past couple of years as Penn State continues to climb out of the hole created by the Sandusky scandal. That progress was noted by embattled NCAA president Mark Emmert.
"The goal has always been to ensure the university reinforces clear expectations and a daily mindset within athletics that the highest priority must be placed on educating, nurturing and protecting young people," said Emmert in a statement. "The Executive Committee's decision to restore the football scholarships provides additional education opportunities and is an important recognition of Penn State's progress."
Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett was happy with the NCAA's decision.
"I am pleased that the NCAA is recognizing the important changes and reforms that the university has undertaken and will continue to make moving forward," he said.
I'd feel fairly neutral about this news, but if Timmay says it is "beyond outrageous" then, by the Timmay Transitive Rule, it must be okay and maybe even good. :P
6 looks like Maria Sharapova.
1 is Hope Solo, isn't it?
Yes to both MBM and teach.
Wife just asked me why Mel Brooks is on ESPN Game Day :lol:
Valmy, since the Wyoming game is on the Longhorn network you are going to have to cheer for Brett Smith for me. He is the godlike one, you can't miss him.
Oklahoma vs. Notre Dame, eh? I can't decide who I want to win less. Normally, it's pretty easy to just hope OU loses and maybe the school shuts down because of it, but that would mean Notre Dame gets a win which is a pretty terrible thing too.
Maybe a meteorite will hit the stadium instead.
Wyoming vs. Texas State is on the LHN? Huh. Interesting.
My god what are WVU wearing?
Quote from: derspiess on September 28, 2013, 11:01:00 AM
Wife just asked me why Mel Brooks is on ESPN Game Day :lol:
NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND
Quote from: katmai on September 28, 2013, 11:22:51 AM
My god what are WVU wearing?
"It helps recruiting" :bleeding:
Can't comment too much as seems UDub is breaking out some serious metallic Gold helmets for the 'Zona game tonight.
Virginia Tech had some retarded rockhead helmets Thursday.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.bleacherreport.net%2Fimg%2Fimages%2Fphotos%2F002%2F383%2F472%2FGoldHelmets_crop_north.jpg%3Fw%3D340%26amp%3Bh%3D234%26amp%3Bq%3D75&hash=ebaf55bf7ea2aff0f13e757670780f6be21acf31)
Lolz, and introducing your Washington Christmas Ornaments!
WVU up on Okie State, 30-21 with 1:28 left :)
I'm gonna go ahead and call it an upset.
And let the couches burn :punk:
Quote from: derspiess on September 28, 2013, 03:15:39 PM
And let the couches burn :punk:
Funny how you didnt mention shit about last weekend.
Nice win for WVU.
SMU is fuckin horrible. TCU dropped 31 points on them in the 4th quarter to win 48-17.
Man, Larry Coker is looking old as hell on the sidelines (he's 65). I wonder how much longer he's going to be able to coach.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 28, 2013, 05:39:07 PM
Man, Larry Coker is looking old as hell on the sidelines (he's 65). I wonder how much longer he's going to be able to coach.
Each year of coaching at Miami counts as 10 years off a thinking person's lifespan.
Good start for Huskies.
:XD: Haha a pass just bounced off a DBs hands and got redirected straight to a receiver for an easy TD. If the guy hadn't touched it, it would have just flown out of bounds. I mean, that sucks for UTSA and all that and Houston is suddenly up by 17 late in the 4th, but it's not something you see every day.
Quote from: PDH on September 28, 2013, 05:55:42 PM
Each year of coaching at Miami counts as 10 years off a thinking person's lifespan.
Damn, that means Larry Coker is going to die....pretty much right now. He was at Miami for something like 10 years.
Nice win by the Hawkeyes at Minnesota. Olde Schoole power I running.
Georgia-LSU was a good game, though definately not a stereotypical SEC defensive battle.
I like Wyoming's uniforms this week, especially compared to the horrifying shit they were wearing last week.
I wish the Wyoming players from last week were in those nice white unis...
Quote from: dps on September 28, 2013, 06:39:19 PM
Georgia-LSU was a good game, though definately not a stereotypical SEC defensive battle.
Yeah, the offenses were really executing very well, and the defenses seemed to be playing a lot softer in pass defense. Awesome game, though.
And Verne Lunquist and Gary Danielson just remind me how bad the broadcasters are for the NFL. :bleeding:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 28, 2013, 06:43:09 PM
And Verne Lunquist and Gary Danielson just remind me how bad the broadcasters are for the NFL. :bleeding:
Those two are terrible.
I can't stand the Swede. Adds nothing to a game.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 28, 2013, 06:48:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 28, 2013, 06:43:09 PM
And Verne Lunquist and Gary Danielson just remind me how bad the broadcasters are for the NFL. :bleeding:
Those two are terrible.
Beats Greg Gumbel and Dan Dierdorf any day of the week.
I've had long time love-hate relationship with CBS and it's college football coverage.
Lightning delay. This is the third time this year for the Cowboys...
God himself is trying to stop the 'Pokes
Okay. That opening song made me throw up. Fuck you ABC.
Quote from: dps on September 28, 2013, 06:39:19 PM
Georgia-LSU was a good game, though definately not a stereotypical SEC defensive battle.
That conversion on 3rd and 23 scared me.
Hope Gurley recovers quickly.
'Zona D is keeping this game close. Playing heck of game.
Dammit. Huskies gave up big drive right before half. 11-6 halftime score.
50 minutes of delay so far, more lightning in the area now...fuck the Longhorn Network, fuck Texas thunderstorms, fuck the slow start by the Cowboys, fuck Texas State, fuck Air Force.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 28, 2013, 03:45:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 28, 2013, 03:15:39 PM
And let the couches burn :punk:
Funny how you didnt mention shit about last weekend.
I did not watch the game. I recorded it while I was out doing stuff, saw the score, and promptly deleted the recording when I got home.
So it didn't happen.
Nice 95yrd drive to open 2nd half. 18-6 UDub vs Arizona.
I'm getting a bad feeling.
Hour and a half delay so far. Fuck Texas lightning.
Quote from: PDH on September 28, 2013, 08:23:17 PM
Hour and a half delay so far. Fuck Texas lightning.
I know...WTH? I have been trying to watch this thing forever. The stupid cable was having problems and then once I fixed it the delay started...still no Wyoming football :(
This was my game during Texas' off week.
Quote from: PDH on September 28, 2013, 08:23:17 PM
Hour and a half delay so far. Fuck Texas lightning.
FYP
I blame Dennis Franchione - he probably is faking the lightning so that he can work out a contract somewhere else and move to a bigger team.
Grumble grumble grumble. Have to listen to old editions of the "Coach's Show" on the radio instead of the game. Still, it is likely better than the LHN people having to watch replays of Texas Women's Soccer.
Do you realize I have had to endure non-stop Mack Brown propaganda during this lightening delay? Do you know how painful that is?
Quote from: PDH on September 28, 2013, 08:53:19 PM
Still, it is likely better than the LHN people having to watch replays of Texas Women's Soccer.
Don't pull that with me I know for a fact you like Wyoming Women's Basketball!
It would be merciful if they were showing actual games.
Edit: Actually they are showing highlights from the UT women's Volleyball team's national championship run last year. They and the Men's Golf and swim teams are the only good programs right now.
Oh yeah, I noticed a bunch of lightning to the north when we were walking out of the place after dinner.
E: That was like 20 minutes ago, so this delay might go on for a while.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 28, 2013, 08:56:28 PM
Oh yeah, I noticed a bunch of lightning to the north when we were walking out of the place after dinner.
E: That was like 20 minutes ago, so this delay might go on for a while.
Yeah it is not looking good. Unlike the women's volleyball team which is awesome.
I am ready to blame God.
Good fucking thing I didn't come down for the game. Of course, had I come done, Valmy and I would be with MBM right now drinking beers in some shady place forgetting about the game.
Welp looks like Huskies will prevail, Arizona would be dangerous if they had a decent starting QB
Fuck all the games that can play because they don't have lightning.
If all stadiums were domed, we wouldn't have this problem.
I now blame ted cruz
:rolleyes:
It's the unions.
Could definitely be Ted's fault. Can't rule it out.
Speaking of domes and stadiums and all that, Valmy, what the hell is A&M spending $450 million dollars on that doesn't involve them basically having Reliant Stadium when they're finished? Everything I've seen looks like it's going to just be Kyle Field with a new facade and some redone interiors. For almost half a billion dollars.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 28, 2013, 09:19:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 28, 2013, 07:32:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 28, 2013, 07:22:28 PM
That conversion on 3rd and 23 scared me.
:mad:
Were you rooting for les tigres?
I am partial to Bert Jones' alma mater. But Georgia has a better shot at defeating Alabama than LSU. A slim one but a better shot, despite LSU having the better receivers.
The Wyoming basketball coach is now on the radio. We are all praying for lightning to strike the stadium at San Marcos. Please God, end this.
At least I don't have to watch volleyball highlights.
Quote from: katmai on September 28, 2013, 09:09:35 PM
Welp looks like Huskies will prevail, Arizona would be dangerous if they had a decent starting QB
Yeah, you don't get far in the Pac-12 with a guy who completes less than half his passes.
You could see that Washington was giving him zero credit as any kind of downfield passing threat. And each time he threw it downfield, it validated that perception.
Denker has balls, and he is tough as hell. He just doesn't have the talent to play at this level.
Do they have any prospects committed yet at QB Berkie?
The weather is pretty shitty up in Eugene tonight. Doesn't seem to be slowing the Ducks down all that much.
E: 20-0 and Cal keeps fumbling. 4 turnovers now in the first Q.
Cal really isn't good, but yeah with UW facing Stanford and Oregon next two weeks I won't be shocked if they are 4-2 at the end of that.
Washington is way better than WSU and Cal, so at least they should be good games. Or at least I think they are.
Since I've been typing this, there have been two more turnovers in the monsoon game. A pick and then a fumble on the next play.
Yeah they are better, but seeing how 'Zona did when they went from sideline to sideline attack to north/south I'm worried about how the D will hold up vs Stanford.
I think they have team speed and at home vs Oregon so think have better chance against them.
Pope Urban is now 17-0 at THE Ohio St. University.
Wyoming goes up 14-7 after a million hour rain delay.
I'm glad PeeDee doesn't teach math at that there University!
I rounded down
Nice. Arizona State just scored two quick TDs (long pass and an INT) to go up 34-21 over USC.
ASU needs to not choke this away. It went from 48-21 to 48-34 in like 4 minutes of game time. Theres 9:25 left to play.
E: Problem solved. 62-34
A small part of me is sad Kiffin us sucking so much, cause means USC might get relevant again.
http://www.destructoid.com/ea-to-pay-tens-of-millions-to-ncaa-student-athletes-262627.phtml
QuoteElectronic Arts has bought its way out of a potentially nasty class action lawsuit, for use of the names, images, and likenesses of former and current NCAA student athletes. All it cost was an undisclosed amount, vaguely referred to as "tens of millions of dollars."
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of past and present athletes who have appeared in an EA Sports videogame, but have gone uncompensated. The named defendants were EA and the NCAA, meaning that the NCAA now stands alone in its own defense.
Although the class is still pending certification, it seems likely to be granted as all plaintiffs are similarly situated and incurred uniform damages. It sounds as if EA was wise to get out relatively cheaply, especially considering that it's made billions on its NCAA videogames. Given that EA has now folded, it wouldn't be surprising if the NCAA was close behind.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2013, 10:41:00 PM
Pope Urban is now 17-0 at THE Ohio St. University.
Goddamn right you will say it correctly.
Ohio State. Must. Be. Stopped.
And... Kiffin is gone. I absolutely agree with the decision not to wait until the end of the season. What a disaster hiring Kiffin has been for everyone stupid enough to do it.
Some USC fans think this gives USC a distinct edge in the coach-hiring race they presume will occur with Texas. I'm not convinced. I think the two schools are looking for different kinds of coaches, and will have only one or two candidates in common..
:nelson: @ Kiffin
And thus the joy of being a Wyoming fan. That thud you heard was the Cowboy offense falling almost as fast as the defense - both hitting rock bottom in a very short space of time. A couple of hours lightning delay, the lightning apparently giving Texas State super powers, and robbing the Wyoming team of any confidence it could have had.
Good teams win the games they are supposed to win, bad teams lose them. Wyoming wins just enough of them to instill hope in supporters, then loses big to crush the hopes of those fans in Brown and Gold who had hoped that maybe...just maybe...this was the year.
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2013, 09:09:02 AM
Some USC fans think this gives USC a distinct edge in the coach-hiring race they presume will occur with Texas. I'm not convinced. I think the two schools are looking for different kinds of coaches, and will have only one or two candidates in common..
I think you're right that they'll be looking for different types of coaches, but I don't really see how this would give them any sort of advantage even if that wasn't the case. It's not like they're going to be able to hire a sought after guy before bowl season anyway, which is when Texas would also be looking for a coach.
This is, of course, making the big assumption that Texas will
fire reassign Mack. Earl Campbell is now publicly talking about how it's time for a change, along with Chris Simms and Jimmy Johnson, so that's interesting.
I predict he beats Oklahoma this year and gets a reprieve.
Stoops, the jerk, will probably throw that game in an effort to keep Mack around for a while longer. <_<
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 29, 2013, 03:42:00 PM
I think you're right that they'll be looking for different types of coaches, but I don't really see how this would give them any sort of advantage even if that wasn't the case. It's not like they're going to be able to hire a sought after guy before bowl season anyway, which is when Texas would also be looking for a coach.
This is, of course, making the big assumption that Texas will fire reassign Mack. Earl Campbell is now publicly talking about how it's time for a change, along with Chris Simms and Jimmy Johnson, so that's interesting.
Their reasooning seems to be that, since they are openly looking for a coach now, they can talk to the candidates and get their arguments across first.
I don't see a head coach candidate being swayed by who talked to him first, though. These guys have been around for a while, and will look at the respective deals dispassionately.
Anyone who would accept a USC offer before Mack Brown's apotheosis wouldn't have been a candidate for Texas, anyway.
Yeah, that doesn't really make much sense, unless they're going after some sort of NFL guy who.....doesn't have a job right now? As you say though, I don't see why anyone that would be in the running for both of those jobs wouldn't want to talk to both of them.
Some stuff from Twitter about the firing:
QuoteInsideUSC @InsideUSC
#USC A.D. Pat Haden met with advisers in tiny room during third quarter of ASU loss. This where decision was made to fire Lane Kiffin
InsideUSC @InsideUSC
Lane Kiffin got pulled off the team bus at Los Angeles International Airport by Pat Haden when he was fired
InsideUSC @InsideUSC
Pat Haden, J.K. McKay, Steve Lopes, Mark Jackson (#USC administrators) met with Lane Kiffin at LAX parking lot to dismiss him
InsideUSC @InsideUSC
I'm told Lane Kiffin told the bus to wait but then #USC administrators told it to go back to campus without him
InsideUSC @InsideUSC
I heard Lane Kiffin left his bag on team bus because he thought his meeting with Pat Haden would be brief and routine matter
Didn't even let him back on campus.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 29, 2013, 06:14:31 PM
(snip) Didn't even let him back on campus.
Actually, they did, of course. They just didn't let him ride back with the team. Kinda bush league.
Kiffin apparently packed his shit up today.
I meant to fire him. Anyway, they've got Ed Orgeron as their interim HC. Gives me the opportunity to post this once again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n1KPQmdddY
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 29, 2013, 06:31:19 PM
I meant to fire him. Anyway, they've got Ed Orgeron as their interim HC. Gives me the opportunity to post this once again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n1KPQmdddY
:lmfao:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 29, 2013, 06:14:31 PM
As you say though, I don't see why anyone that would be in the running for both of those jobs wouldn't want to talk to both of them.
The hot Texas sun perhaps.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2013, 06:49:42 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 29, 2013, 06:14:31 PM
As you say though, I don't see why anyone that would be in the running for both of those jobs wouldn't want to talk to both of them.
The hot Texas sun perhaps.
(apologies to Valmy) When I went to the the game there it was too fucking hot to think.
:lol: A coach that couldn't function if it got hot outside would be hilarious.
I'd like to know how Urban Meyer survived wearing those jackets in the heat. Or Tressel with his Sweater Vest in those early season balmy days.
Cool pacs in his armpits.
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2013, 03:50:19 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 29, 2013, 03:42:00 PM
I think you're right that they'll be looking for different types of coaches, but I don't really see how this would give them any sort of advantage even if that wasn't the case. It's not like they're going to be able to hire a sought after guy before bowl season anyway, which is when Texas would also be looking for a coach.
This is, of course, making the big assumption that Texas will fire reassign Mack. Earl Campbell is now publicly talking about how it's time for a change, along with Chris Simms and Jimmy Johnson, so that's interesting.
Their reasooning seems to be that, since they are openly looking for a coach now, they can talk to the candidates and get their arguments across first.
I don't see a head coach candidate being swayed by who talked to him first, though. These guys have been around for a while, and will look at the respective deals dispassionately.
Anyone who would accept a USC offer before Mack Brown's apotheosis wouldn't have been a candidate for Texas, anyway.
Perhaps they simply wanted to give Orgeron an audition as interim coach to decide if they want to give him the job on a more permanent basis. Probably not, but who knows?
Quote from: PDH on September 29, 2013, 06:51:50 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2013, 06:49:42 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 29, 2013, 06:14:31 PM
As you say though, I don't see why anyone that would be in the running for both of those jobs wouldn't want to talk to both of them.
The hot Texas sun perhaps.
(apologies to Valmy) When I went to the the game there it was too fucking hot to think.
Heh. I got a sunburn on a 40 degree day when I was in Laramie :P
But yeah the September games are notoriously brutal. The heat did not seem to stop Wyoming from almost beating Texas though :blush:
Quote from: dps on September 29, 2013, 07:51:56 PM
Perhaps they simply wanted to give Orgeron an audition as interim coach to decide if they want to give him the job on a more permanent basis. Probably not, but who knows?
Could be, but I think it was much more impulsive a firing than that. The decision took less than a quarter of football to make, and it was implemented the first moment Hayden could get Kiffin by himself.
I'd think the boosters would want a much bigger name than Orgeron, but I have no real evidence that this is true.
I was hoping Kiffin would get to at least finish the year. I don't want to see a real coach at SC.
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2013, 07:58:41 PM
I'd think the boosters would want a much bigger name than Orgeron, but I have no real evidence that this is true.
Yeah I don't expect him to be named as the final choice, but the flurry of rumors repeated most today have been USC wanting Fisher or Del Rio, but who knows.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 29, 2013, 07:03:27 PM
I'd like to know how Urban Meyer survived wearing those jackets in the heat. Or Tressel with his Sweater Vest in those early season balmy days.
The undead produce no body heat.
:lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fww3.hdnux.com%2Fphotos%2F14%2F07%2F05%2F3174738%2F0%2F622x350.jpg&hash=b8e2add15dd5965f683795c19e7380833cd3c7bd)
RIP James Street
E: I just realized I didn't include a link: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/article/Former-Longhorn-quarterback-James-Street-dies-4856029.php
Yeah that was a shocker. People had just seen him at the Padres game, watching his son pitch, yesterday perfectly healthy. A freak heart attack.
Sad sad day for Texas fans.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2013, 10:39:24 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 29, 2013, 07:03:27 PM
I'd like to know how Urban Meyer survived wearing those jackets in the heat. Or Tressel with his Sweater Vest in those early season balmy days.
The undead produce no body heat.
Yeah, I guess both of them are out as possible HC at USC--Haden has specifically said that he'll limit his search to living coaches.
http://www.mystatesman.com/weblogs/bohl-games/2013/sep/30/sources-dodds-stepping-down/
Selective quoting:
QuoteTexas athletic director DeLoss Dodds will announce Tuesday afternoon that he will step down next August after 32 years in the position
QuoteThe source said Texas President Bill Powers will lead the search for a successor and would very much like to have the position filled possibly before Dec. 1 although that's probably overly optimistic. The source added that West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck, a graduate of the Texas Law School, would be an important candidate "to keep an eye on."
:ph34r:
I haven't made up my mind on Luck as the WVU AD yet. I was as excited as anyone when he was hired, but he hasn't done a whole lot to impress me yet. Yes, he did get WVU into the Big12, but (money aside) the overall Big12 experience has been kind of painful for WVU in both football and basketball. Hopefully both programs can adjust & compete.
Anywho, it looks like Baylor is picked by 27 points over WVU this weekend :pinch: I guess the oddsmakers aren't buying into any hype from last week. Over/under on headsets demolished by Holgorsen is 4; for number of Red Bulls chugged on the sidelines it's 5.
Quote from: derspiess on October 01, 2013, 10:15:51 AM
Anywho, it looks like Baylor is picked by 27 points over WVU this weekend :pinch: I guess the oddsmakers aren't buying into any hype from last week.
Nobody has much faith in Mountaineers on the road. I suspect not even West Virginia does.
It will be interesting to see just how good Baylor really is.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on September 30, 2013, 06:21:34 PM
QuoteTexas athletic director DeLoss Dodds will announce Tuesday afternoon that he will step down next August after 32 years in the position
Better late than never. I never really liked that guy, such an arrogant jerk. He did good things for the University blah blah. Anyway hopefully the next guy will waste little time radically changing the culture, attitude, and personnel over at Bellmont.
I wish Jesse Palmer would lose his voice. OR SOMETHING.
If he only lost his voice, he'd still be sitting in there with his stupid hair and that stupid look on his face.
At least Brad Nessler is calling the Buffalo-Cleveland game.
:hmm: I can't believe they didn't give up and let ISU score the TD. Now Case is going to do something dumb like win (or just something dumb).
:lmfao: What the fuck is this game? A contest to see who wants the win less?
E: Apparently, ISU wanted to win less.
I haven't seen them play that pathetically in victory since Kansas last year.
This game was sort of bizarre combination of last year's Kansas and Oklahoma State games. Thank Hod and the Virgin Gary for that Hail Mary.
Ah well playing like garbage and winning sure beats playing like garbage and losing.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-wwFLx51yZ-E/Uk4wqPGhsvI/AAAAAAAACuY/YMko1YRDj5U/s800/ridic.JPG)
Paul Rhoads be mad:
http://www.cyclones.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?id=3076185
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2013, 10:15:18 PM
Ah well playing like garbage and winning sure beats playing like garbage and losing.
That was Ohio State's motto last year, and Michigan's this year.
Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2013, 11:21:56 PM
Paul Rhoads be mad:
http://www.cyclones.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?id=3076185
Has that been taken down? I don't see it on your link for some reason, but is that the one where he's talking about the fisrt fumble? Paul Rhoads should probably be mad about his team giving up like 50 yards in penalties on the last drive and not worry so much about some shit you couldn't really see that doesn't get changed all the time. And passing on that third down when he had been running it down the Horns throat? Hmmmm
Yeah ultimately Iowa State had to all but give us the game with their penalties and drop on what would have been the game clinching TD.
But that is two years in a row we have won a game thanks to a bizarre non-fumble call on the goal line. Heh.
If Mike Davis wasn't such a dick (what was up with that cheap shot in the end zone?), I'd be inclined to say he was the player of the game. Not because of big catches late, but because apparently they thought that the only way to cover him was to just grab and hang on, so there were like 4 PI penalties on the guys covering him, all of which came on TD drives.
The one time he was open deep that I saw (I got home late in the 2nd, just in time for the hail mary drive lolz), Case missed him by a solid 10 yards.
E: Didn't ESPN give Case "player of the game"?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 04, 2013, 08:15:36 AM
If Mike Davis wasn't such a dick (what was up with that cheap shot in the end zone?), I'd be inclined to say he was the player of the game. Not because of big catches late, but because apparently they thought that the only way to cover him was to just grab and hang on, so there were like 4 PI penalties on the guys covering him.
Yeah that was the difference in the game. It is also just embarrasing the way Mack Brown and Mike Davis are dealing with the cheap shot.
QuoteThe one time he was open deep that I saw (I got home late in the 2nd, just in time for the hail mary drive lolz), Case missed him by a solid 10 yards.
Yeah I saw that. Ugly ugly.
What are they doing about that? Just acting like it didn't happen? I saw Mack arguing the unnecessary roughness call like it was just the worst thing ever, but haven't seen what they said about it after the game.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 04, 2013, 08:27:32 AM
What are they doing about that? Just acting like it didn't happen? I saw Mack arguing the unnecessary roughness call like it was just the worst thing ever, but haven't seen what they said about it after the game.
Mack Brown said he didn't hear the whistle and it was a straight up block. Seriously. A straight up block into the back of somebody's knees I guess. Mike Davis later tweeted he plays until the whistle so no apologies. I guess that is the company line: he was just playing hard no cheap shot here. Move along.
Quote from: Valmy on October 04, 2013, 07:24:19 PM
Mack Brown said he didn't hear the whistle and it was a straight up block. Seriously. A straight up block into the back of somebody's knees I guess. Mike Davis later tweeted he plays until the whistle so no apologies. I guess that is the company line: he was just playing hard no cheap shot here. Move along.
I don't think that the argument that he is deaf and so can attack players who can hear the whistle is quite the right approach. I'd suspect, though, that plenty of defensive players on the teams that Davis has yet to play have seen his assault, and are making their own plans to make sure he can't try to cripple them or their team-mates...
First Navy game I watch this season and freaking Air Force is actually playing good. At least its a good game to have on the background while I get some stuff done.
Whew, 21-10 Navy, with less than 8 on the 4th.
I know Baylor is going to kill WVU, but seriously, those gold hlmets/facemasks....
HOLY SHIT, TOUCHDOWN WVU!!!
Are you fucking kidding me? Is pass interference no longer called in the Big12????
I mean, WVU has probably already lost this game, but no need to made it any easier for Baylor.
Same old Maryland, same old Florida State. :(
The Notre Dame uniforms have that interesting, indirect green glow about them, like right out of Excalibur, which means they'll be playing in an overly long game with an unoriginal soundtrack.
HEY NOW. I give that movie an 'A'.
As long as the Purple Percivals slay your little sweatervest Mordred monkeys tonight.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2013, 08:17:56 PM
As long as the Purple Percivals slay your little sweatervest Mordred monkeys tonight.
:lol:
Considering how sucky Ohio State has been at NW recently, you might get your wish.
Gotta hand it to the Baylor fans' intensity. They're up 42-7 and they boo like crazy on a blatant hands to the face roughing penalty :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on October 05, 2013, 08:36:55 PM
Gotta hand it to the Baylor fans' intensity. They're up 42-7 and they boo like crazy on a blatant hands to the face roughing penalty :lol:
Dude they have been waiting decades for this. They are already calling a 50+ point destruction of Texas.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 05, 2013, 08:22:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2013, 08:17:56 PM
As long as the Purple Percivals slay your little sweatervest Mordred monkeys tonight.
:lol:
Considering how sucky Ohio State has been at NW recently, you might get your wish.
Should I be on the Pat Fitzgerald Bandwagon? Alot of people want him to be the next Texas HC.
Another game, another close win, another running back down.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 05, 2013, 09:05:09 PM
Another game, another close win, another running back down.
Actually kind of pulling for Georgia this year. Mark Richt always gets so much crap.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2013, 09:08:06 PM
Actually kind of pulling for Georgia this year.
Only team with a realistic chance to destroy the Evil Empire in the SEC Championship.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2013, 08:46:50 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 05, 2013, 08:22:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2013, 08:17:56 PM
As long as the Purple Percivals slay your little sweatervest Mordred monkeys tonight.
:lol:
Considering how sucky Ohio State has been at NW recently, you might get your wish.
Should I be on the Pat Fitzgerald Bandwagon? Alot of people want him to be the next Texas HC.
He's a good coach. I don't know if he'd leave his Alma Mater.
Hey MBM David Ash is out for OU. Probably out for the year with his concussion issues.
Not a shocker but man is this season quickly headed for the crapper. Texas might be lucky to go 5-7 again.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2013, 08:46:50 PM
Should I be on the Pat Fitzgerald Bandwagon? Alot of people want him to be the next Texas HC.
I'm not sure even Texas has enough bags of gold to put in front of Fitzgerald to get him to leave Northwestern. He has an ideal situation there, and a huge emotional investment.
Well, Braxton is crumbling a bit.
Columbus sports radio will be even more retarded Monday.
I wonder how many Buckeye coeds there are that Mrs. Meyer doesn't know about yet. I bet it's a lot.
Fucking Ole Miss almost gave me a heart attack, but at the end, Auburn won it 30 - 22.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2013, 09:09:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2013, 09:08:06 PM
Actually kind of pulling for Georgia this year.
Only team with a realistic chance to destroy the Evil Empire in the SEC Championship.
I think Berkut's favorite team may be the best this year.
I'm up way past my bedtime. :(
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2013, 09:14:11 PM
Hey MBM David Ash is out for OU. Probably out for the year with his concussion issues.
Not a shocker but man is this season quickly headed for the crapper. Texas might be lucky to go 5-7 again.
Yeah I saw that about Ash. Probably for the best, for him not Texas, if he sits for the rest of the year and gets a medical redshirt. Yeah, we have to suffer through watching almost an entire season of Case, but it's better than Ash not even knowing his own name after the season because the OL can't block and the running game is made up entirely of QB draws.
5-7 does seem like it would be lucky after that ISU game. Mack is done no matter what though, I think.
Man if Huskies can only corral their penalty proclivity they might be decent this year.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 05, 2013, 08:05:02 PM
Same old Maryland, same old Florida State. :(
The Notre Dame uniforms have that interesting, indirect green glow about them, like right out of Excalibur, which means they'll be playing in an overly long game with an unoriginal soundtrack.
I hope
Quote from: Rasputin on October 06, 2013, 07:05:24 AM
FSU has some serious weapons this season and can definitely be a player in the National Championship discussion. Of course, they were last year, too. Until they shit the bed against NCSU.
All comes down to who they'll shit the bed with this season. My guess is Clemson in two weeks.
So, Seedy, how'd you like the Sweater Vest Mordred's winning? :)
Go fuck yourself.
"Help us, Brady Hoke Kenobi, you're our only hope."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fscienceinseconds.com%2FcmsFiles%2FpageImages%2Fleiahologram.jpg&hash=465d9faab9177c3fd8a5b9bea4d628f2c533df99)
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 06, 2013, 08:38:02 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 06, 2013, 07:05:24 AM
FSU has some serious weapons this season and can definitely be a player in the National Championship discussion. Of course, they were last year, too. Until they shit the bed against NCSU.
All comes down to who they'll shit the bed with this season. My guess is Clemson in two weeks.
As good as Clemson is this year they will likely be favored in that game, hardly a shit the bed moment
It's far ,ore likely that we beat Clemson and have a let down against ncsu the following week
O tempora o mores. :(
Wyoming had a bye this week, so the team went undefeated. Next week the movable Wyoming defense against New Mexico that can only run the ball but does so to the pace of about 500 yards per game.
This might be a bad one...
Are Clemson and Auburn public or private?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2013, 08:45:04 PM
Are Clemson and Auburn public or private?
Why do you ask?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2013, 08:45:04 PM
Are Clemson and Auburn public or private?
Huh, for some reason I thought that Auburn was private. Learn something every day. :)
Rutgers and Lville are playing right now. 3-0 UL, a guy has already been carted off with what looked like a broken arm.
In other, way more stupid news:
Tennessee and VaTech are going to play at Bristol Motor Speedway in 2016, with the joint being set up for 160,000. That sounds fairly cool at first until you think about how far away the fans are going to be from the game:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg822.imageshack.us%2Fimg822%2F3274%2F4msk.jpg&hash=70f5989c7b63cb422a37280b742a03259af4bea7)
Tickets on the 50 and you're 75 yards from the field? AWESOME SIGN ME UP RIGHT Nwait no that sucks
When did "Teddy Ballgame" become a thing (Teddy Bridgewater)? Since "Johnny Football" became ultra popular? It's stupid and too ripoff-y, but ESPN types seem to be saying it a lot recently (not just today).
Oh the numbers in parentheses above are the distances for similar seats at Neyland.
LOL, like when "The Genius" Belichoke drafted "Touchdown" Tommy Vardell. Tommy didn't tell him he left all the touchdowns at Stanford. BUT HES A GENIUS
I know it's only high school, but this popped up on CBS tonight (I didn't know they even had a high school sports section until just now heh):
http://www.maxpreps.com/blogs/maxwire-national-blog/Zk3DjP6fCEWo-UVURRdN_w/alexander-senior-marc-lozoya-sets-texas-receiving-record,-just-misses-national-mark.htm
QuoteIt was a special night in Texas for Alexander (Laredo, Texas) senior Marc Lozoya.
The receiver hauled in 16 passes for 448 yards and six touchdowns in a 63-35 win over Winn, according to TexasHSfootball.com.
According to the NFHS national record book, the standard for receiving yards in a game is 456 set by Kraig Pruett in November of 2012. The Texas state record was 392 yards, set by Austin Bustos of Amarillo Caprock in 2012.
Now, AFAIK the Laredo area and the Valley aren't really known for having a huge amount of football talent, so this guy might have just been running all over scrubs, but still. 16 for 448 and 6TDs is....notable. They couldn't get one more pass to him for the record though? Cmon coach.
Oh and I won't be able to watch the game tomorrow, but fuck OU and fuck Bob Stoops. The dirt burglars will always suck no matter what. :punk:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Ftravel%2F071003%2Ftravel_hookem_fans_800.jpg&hash=89c301e3cf0c795ba9b99607a98d99d6ec2868ef)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fe2%2FHookemhorns.jpg&hash=3cf6947f96bbbc0a130aa124d3c8c72ec1bbfe48)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.reporternews.com%2Fmedia%2Fimg%2Fphotos%2F2010%2F08%2F09%2F20100809-222649-pic-78772358_t607.jpg&hash=8e25ee033d523699b2853ac32c5c743de2af61da)
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 10, 2013, 07:06:51 PM
When did "Teddy Ballgame" become a thing (Teddy Bridgewater)? Since "Johnny Football" became ultra popular? It's stupid and too ripoff-y, but ESPN types seem to be saying it a lot recently (not just today).
Ted Williams' head in a jar should sue! :angry:
Liking the OU-Texas game so far.
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2013, 11:52:34 AM
Liking the OU-Texas game so far.
The gameday thread and gamecast is making me want to just get up and leave and go somewhere I can watch it. I dont really need a job, right? :(
E: Hooray! I might actually be out of here in time to see the second half! Of course, that's when it'll all fall apart.
I am actually excited for a Ducks game for the first time all season.
The Huskies have definitely narrowed the talent gap in the last couple of years, and this is the first game all year the Ducks really have any chance of losing. If Oregon plays as well as they can they will win comfortably; if not the Huskies have a great chance to beat them. I think it will be interesting into the 4th quarter either way.
The Ducks have won the last 9 games against Washington by an average of almost 26 points per game. I heard on the radio yesterday that in those 9 games (540 minutes of game time) the Huskies have led for a grand total of ~3 minutes.*
I'm watching last year's Oregon/Washington game on the Pac-12 Football in 60, where they replay the game without any of the downtime so it can be shown in 60 minutes. It is hard to tell the difference between the real game and this when Oregon has the ball.
I was at that game last year and must have been drunker than I thought because I don't remember any of this.
Whoa.
VICTORY
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 12, 2013, 02:42:08 PM
Whoa.
VICTORY
And it was not as close as the score indicated. OU SUCKS!! :punk:
Well that was about as much fun as I have had watching Texas play since Nebraska 2010.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2013, 02:47:34 PM
And it was not as close as the score indicated. OU SUCKS!! :punk:
Well that was about as much as I have had watching Texas play since Nebraska 2010.
:punk: Yeah, beatdown. Case derped it up a little on that screen, but it was also a great play by that DL.
The D played really well. Robinson has done some good work on that side of the ball. Also Blake Bell seems...not so good. How much of that was the D and how much of that was Bell, I don't know.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 12, 2013, 02:51:08 PM
The D played really well. Robinson has done some good work on that side of the ball.
Just like in 2004 Greg Robinson has done an amazing job. You wonder if Texas might be unbeaten if Mack had just brought him on at the end of last season. Ah well. Whatever horrible things he did at Syracuse and Michigan do not seem to apply to him here.
Oh and here is a gif of that Texas kid screaming 'Fuck you Sooners' on national TV. That was hilarious
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDddKwoV.gif&hash=4d11d476ac86691b3fa47dce978389aae0a07630)
By the way Georgia I believed for one who week :(
Sorry about that.
The OU punter on Daje's huge touchdown:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.sbnation.com%2Fassets%2F3377879%2Fpunter.gif&hash=29c98b04ce6e4007f28e55101d566ef56bd8b97e)
:lol:
Last year's game was more fun :(
Wyoming jumps out to a 21-0 lead against New Mexico. It should have been 28-0 but there was a dropped TD catch (I mean in the guys hands as he crossed the goal line).
21-3 at halftime.
Third quarter 24-24...
Wyoming wins 38-31, but Jesus Fucking Christ on a Goddamn Popsicle Stick...if it weren't for Brett Smith Wyoming would be 1-5 right now.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2013, 02:47:34 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 12, 2013, 02:42:08 PM
Whoa.
VICTORY
And it was not as close as the score indicated. OU SUCKS!! :punk:
Well that was about as much fun as I have had watching Texas play since Nebraska 2010.
And as a bonus, you get to keep your coach :P
Welp Huskies lasted 3 quarters with Ducks. Hope Oregon wins rest of games and plays in BCS game.
Wyoming gets to play Oregon next year :)
Quote from: PDH on October 12, 2013, 06:23:25 PM
Wyoming gets to play Oregon next year :)
Well at least you won't have to face Mariotta :P
Quote from: katmai on October 12, 2013, 06:25:28 PM
Quote from: PDH on October 12, 2013, 06:23:25 PM
Wyoming gets to play Oregon next year :)
Well at least you won't have to face Mariotta :P
:D
No kidding.
:(
@ Valmy: :lmfao:
The game went about what I said. The Huskies were close , but the Ducks really are a step above. I really liek this win, because I think the Huskies are a legit Top 15 team, if not Top 10.
Quote from: sbr on October 12, 2013, 06:30:52 PM
The game went about what I said. The Huskies were close , but the Ducks really are a step above. I really liek this win, because I think the Huskies are a legit Top 15 team, if not Top 10.
Huskies are 4-2 which is what I was expecting, semi tough game going down to ASU next week, but the next three games should be wins putting them at 7-2 when face UCLA
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2013, 04:16:15 PM
Last year's game was more fun :(
Go to NBC Sports Network right now.
Wow that Ped State kicker missed the hell out of that game tying FG.
Quote from: katmai on October 12, 2013, 06:33:07 PM
Quote from: sbr on October 12, 2013, 06:30:52 PM
The game went about what I said. The Huskies were close , but the Ducks really are a step above. I really liek this win, because I think the Huskies are a legit Top 15 team, if not Top 10.
Huskies are 4-2 which is what I was expecting, semi tough game going down to ASU next week, but the next three games should be wins putting them at 7-2 when face UCLA
They lost to the #2 team and the #5 team in teh nation. They outplayed Stanford, but too many mistakes. I will be disappointed if teh ASU game is a tough one for the Huskies.
Wyoming better fucking play better than this next weekend. It is against CSU (who are the suckingist bunch of sucks that ever sucked) and so it is a rivalry game.
I won't be satisfied with anything less than 105-0 Wyoming.
Quote from: sbr on October 12, 2013, 06:43:56 PM
I will be disappointed if teh ASU game is a tough one for the Huskies.
As will I. like said I expect them to be riding three game win streak when face UCLA which could be top ten team by that time.
Stanford upset at Utah.
Heck of an ending to the Michigan-Penn State game.
Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2013, 02:47:34 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 12, 2013, 02:42:08 PM
Whoa.
VICTORY
And it was not as close as the score indicated. OU SUCKS!! :punk:
Well that was about as much fun as I have had watching Texas play since Nebraska 2010.
Isn't this really a defeat since now you have to keep Mack Brown?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 12, 2013, 09:57:15 PM
Isn't this really a defeat since now you have to keep Mack Brown?
Why does Valmy have to keep Mack Brown?
E: Cal WR just made a helluva catch.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 12, 2013, 10:07:31 PM
Why does Valmy have to keep Mack Brown?
Because it's not up to him.
Oh that was serious? Mack Brown didn't get shitcanned after losing to OU in three straight games with two of those being horrific blowouts. He wasn't going anywhere no matter what happened today. There won't be anything until after the season, unless he somehow announces his retirement, which still wouldn't happen until after the season.
E: Man, Colorado is getting pummeled by ASU. I wonder if they'll ever be good again.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 12, 2013, 10:22:57 PM
Oh that was serious? Mack Brown didn't get shitcanned after losing to OU in three straight games with two of those being horrific blowouts. He wasn't going anywhere no matter what happened today. There won't be anything until after the season, unless he somehow announces his retirement, which still wouldn't happen until after the season.
You'd have to ask Tim.
I'd say it certainly helped his chances if he wants to still be coaching them next year. Unless he literally knows where the bodies are buried, there's a point where he can't keep underperforming and keep his job.
I'm not sure it really did much of anything except really make a point about how messed up the defense was under Manny Diaz, which Mack should have noticed and should have corrected in the offseason instead of after a record breaking loss to BYU and their cripple QB. There's still a lot of games left. Mack needs to do what he's been talking about all year and win the Big 12 and a BCS bowl. That might buy him time.
With the new AD, there will probably be a new football coach though.
E: Whoa I just noticed the DET-BOS box score. Gotta watch some baseball for a bit here.
I'm not sure how I feel about the Stanford loss.
On one hand, :nelson: suck it Stanford. The loss really helps the Ducks' odd of winning the Pac-12 north.
On the other, it hurts the Ducks' chances of playing for the Natty, though not much if they end up undefeated.
It also shows the depth of the conference.
(https://fbcdn-photos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/s720x720/1381365_725040734176190_441908015_n.jpg)
Oregon has signed a deal for a home-and-home series with Nebraska in 2016-2017.
In the next 8 years Oregon has home and home series with Nebraska, Michigan State, Texas A&M and Ohio State.
Ohio State and a bunch of creampuffs eh?
Uh oh, Baylor is now the highest ranked Big12 team, at #12. That means they'll lose next week to whomever they're playing. Iowa State? Hmm, maybe not.
Quote from: derspiess on October 14, 2013, 11:13:58 AM
Uh oh, Baylor is now the highest ranked Big12 team, at #12. That means they'll lose next week to whomever they're playing. K State? Hmm, maybe not.
They just beat K-State this week, they have Iowa State next.
And yes this conference is a brutal struggle of behemoths where the schools bump each other off incessantly.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 11:12:51 AM
Ohio State and a bunch of creampuffs eh?
Yeah, Texas A & M with their 7th ranked team and Heisman winning QB. What a lightweight... :rolleyes:
This is the week of the Border War. Wyoming vs Colorado State, the 105th meeting of the two. Wyoming fans hate BYU, they hate Utah...but they despise the CSU Rams (aggies) and any good Wyoming fan wants to see them lose.
Wyoming is everything that is good and true about football. They are paragons of athletes playing the game properly. CSU is a bunch of scum sucking idiots who are poor sports, cheaters, and all around losers.
For a team like Wyoming, this week is everything.
Hope they don't wear those faggoty ass digital camo unis, like they're deer hunting in Sadr City.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 14, 2013, 10:47:58 PM
Hope they don't wear those faggoty ass digital camo unis, like they're deer hunting in Sadr City.
Naw, that is just to confuse Air Force. The cadets all think it is a cool email and so they lose their focus.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2013, 11:12:51 AM
Ohio State and a bunch of creampuffs eh?
:)
I rooted for Texas in the Red River Shootout. :)
Oregon's uniforms for this week.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fmedia%2Fmotion%2F2013%2F1017%2Fdm_131017_ncf_oregon_pink_helmet%2Fdm_131017_ncf_oregon_pink_helmet.jpg&hash=248968bce688a7234005540a22b71b6c2575d962)
Celebrating Campus Date Rape Month?
Wow. WVU just went for it on 4th and 14 at the end of the first Q, down only 10-0, from inside the Tech 30 (they didn't pick it up, and it wasn't close). Either their kicker really really sucks, or Holgerson is already drunk.
In celebration of their first appearance on my TV set ever Wyoming is getting their asses handed to them. :(
AU at T A&M, crazy game already, should end up a high scoring game of fast offenses and so-so defenses.
Iowa is running stride for stride with the Fuckeyes through 3 quarters. At THE Fuckeye stadium. :huh:
I don't want to talk about anything. Ever again.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 19, 2013, 03:28:39 PM
AU at T A&M, crazy game already, should end up a high scoring game of fast offenses and so-so defenses.
War Eagle!
Crazy game, my ticker almost could not deal with it. War Damn Eagle! :punk:
They are back (well, almost :lol:).
Huskies are making Wyoming's performance today look fantastic.
Fuckign Huskies
It is a day of UW fail.
Lol, Clemson's entrance into the Valley was priceless.
If I was the coach, that ramp entrance would make me nervous as hell.
HEY, IS THAT MY QUARTERBACK?
I was waiting for the South Carolina state trooper to faceplant his campaign hat at the bottom of it.
This is beautiful.
The only thing missing is a racially insensitive mascot putting a flaming spear into the back of the guy in the tiger
Suit.
MAH DOUGHNUTS
Ole Miss giving away a dominant defensive performance against LSU.
Ole Miss!
2nd half of USC-Norte Dame was painfull to watch. ND couldn't do jackshit with Rees hurt, and USC could barely get off a play without a false start or holding call.
Coach Don James lost his battle versus Pancreatic cancer today. Much worse news than the performance of Huskies yesterday.
:sleep:
Quote from: katmai on October 20, 2013, 04:15:56 PM
Coach Don James lost his battle versus Pancreatic cancer today. Much worse news than the performance of Huskies yesterday.
:( Too bad. AS much I I hated him teams, he was a great coach and a good man.
QuoteUpdated Sunday, October 20, 2013 at 02:11 PM
FAREWELL TO A HUSKY LEGEND
By Adam Jude
Seattle Times staff reporter
Don James, one of the most beloved figures in the proud history of University of Washington football, died Sunday after a battle with pancreatic cancer.
He was 80 years old.
James set the standard for success for the program as the Huskies' coach from 1975 to 1992. He remains the Huskies' winningest head coach in the program's 128-year history, with a 153-57-2 overall record in 18 seasons.
James orchestrated the Huskies' perfect season in 1991, culminating in a 34-14 victory over Michigan in the Rose Bowl that gave UW a 12-0 record and a share of the national championship with Miami.
A disciplinarian with an acute attention to detail, James was affectionately nicknamed "The Dawgfather." He was respected and feared by his players and opponents alike. Former players and colleagues describe him as a tough, humble man who was revered throughout college football as one of the game's best coaches.
He was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 1997, four years after retiring in protest of what he believed were unjust sanctions handed down by the Pacific-10 Conference against the UW program.
The Huskies' accomplishments on the football field are now judged on the glory days of the Don James Era.
James led UW to 15 bowl games in 18 years, winning 10 of them, including four Rose Bowls. He retired in 1993 as the most successful coach in the then-Pacific-10 Conference, with 97 victories, 38 losses and two ties.
"We'll honor him every way we can," current UW coach Steve Sarkisian said. "But the best thing we can do is embody the characteristics that he possesses, and that's our toughness, mental and physical toughness, and then play a brand of football that he instilled here for decades. "
In a 1982 interview, James described his approach in recruiting players to Washington: "The players we go after are all one kind," he said. "They are good hitters who are also good people."
James had begun chemotherapy treatment in September for a malignant tumor on his pancreas. He is survived by his wife, Carol — who, like her husband, grew up in Massillon, Ohio — and their three grown children, Jeff, Jill and Jeni.
James was born Dec. 31, 1932 as the third of four sons. Their father was a bricklayer in the football hotbed of Massillon.
James played quarterback and defensive back for two state championship teams at Washington High School. He accepted a scholarship to play quarterback at Miami (Fla.), where he set five passing records. He was named the team's top scholar-athlete before graduating from Miami in 1954.
He was commissioned as Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army, serving two years before resuming his studies at the University of Kansas, where he also served as the Jayhawks' freshman football coach. In 1957, he graduated from Kansas with a master's degree in education.
He returned to Miami and became the coach football and basketball at Southwest High School.
In 1959, he was hired as an assistant football coach at Florida State, and in his four seasons as defensive coordinator, the Seminoles recorded 13 shutouts from 1962-65. He then served as the head defensive coach at Michigan for two seasons before joining the Colorado staff in the same role.
In 1971, Kent State athletic director Mike Lude gave James his first college head-coaching job. In his first game, James led the Golden Flashes to a 21-10 upset of North Carolina State, with a Kent State roster that included future Hall of Fame linebacker Jack Lambert, current Alabama coach Nick Saban and current Missouri coach Gary Pinkel. That team won the first and only Mid-American Conference championship in Kent State history
James, 25-19-1 in four seasons at Kent State, was hired at Washington on Dec. 23, 1974. In 1976, James helped Lude land the job as UW's athletic director.
"He is one of, if not my best, friends," Lude said. "We worked together for 20 years without an argument, without a fight."
It didn't take long for James to build a winner at Washington. James' first two UW teams went a combined 11-11, but by 1977 the Huskies won the Pacific-8 Conference championship and beat Michigan, 27-20, in the Rose Bowl — the Huskies' first Rose Bowl victory since 1961.
Washington had a winning record in every season under James after that, rising to No. 1 in the nation in the wire-service polls for seven straight weeks during the 1982 season. The 1984 UW team finished 11-1, with a victory over Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl, and was ranked No. 1 in the season's final poll by The Football News and the Chicago Tribune.
In the 1980s, UW won more games, 84, than any other Pacific-10 team.
The dominant 1991 team, led by All-Americans Steve Emtman, Mario Bailey and Dave Hoffmann, outscored opponents by an average of 41.2 to 9.6 points, and the Huskies finished the season No. 1 in the USA Today/Coaches poll.
In 1992, James led UW to its third consecutive Rose Bowl berth, where the Huskies lost to a rematch to Michigan, 38-31. It was the last game James would coach.
On perhaps the darkest day for Washington football — Aug. 23, 1993 — the Pacific-10 Conference announced a two-year bowl ban and scholarship reductions after a scandal involving several UW players receiving money for little or no work done in Los Angeles.
James resigned the same day.
"We had done so much for the league," James told The Seattle Times in a 2006 interview, "and rather than regard us as family, they went after us because we were so good. It wasn't the NCAA. It was the Pac-10 and our administration."
James was succeeded by Jim Lambright, a longtime UW assistant.
An avid runner, James finished the Seattle Marathon in 1987. He was a dedicated golfer, and he once climbed Mount Rainier.
He spent much of his life with Carol in retirement in Palm Desert, Calif., on the edge of two Arnold Palmer golf courses.
Who?
Quote from: katmai on October 20, 2013, 04:15:56 PM
Coach Don James lost his battle versus Pancreatic cancer today. Much worse news than the performance of Huskies yesterday.
Don James was a legend. RIP
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on October 20, 2013, 04:55:09 PM
Who?
QuoteDon James did not have -- or need -- a two-sided stone fireplace in his office.
He did not need an indoor practice facility, which is perhaps why his teams played so well in bad weather. He did not need ever-changing uniform styles each week. He did not need anything, really, other than a rather simple tower of scaffolding from which he oversaw practices and turned the University of Washington Huskies into one of the finest football programs in the country.
James, who died Sunday, was the greatest football coach Washington has ever had, which is saying something considering that Darrell Royal once coached there and Gil Dobie never lost a game in his nine years there. James took over a floundering program and turned it into the best team in the conference. He took the Huskies to 15 bowl games in 18 years, including six Rose Bowls. He won the co-national championship in 1991 and should have won it in 1984 (BYU? Really?).
He also routinely beat the Oregon Ducks.
This is why, when Sports Illustrated named the three best college coaches in the country one fall, the magazine's list was: No. 1, Don James; No. 2, Don James; No. 3, Don James.
Never got to watch much Huskies ball back in the day of limited coverage in the 80s and early 90s, but always knew I'd see Don James come New Year's Day.
I mean, my God, the man won with Billy Joe Hobert, for fuck's sake.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 20, 2013, 10:38:58 PM
Never got to watch much Huskies ball back in the day of limited coverage in the 80s and early 90s, but always knew I'd see Don James come New Year's Day.
I never followed College Football as kid till I moved to Seattle in '85 and the town loved them their Largent, Warner and Krieg with the Seahawks, but the town still belonged to Coach James.
I have always lived in the west and north of that wasteland of southern California so I always knew about Don James. The man WAS the the Northwest.
...especially because Cal has always been..well...Cal.
Quote from: PDH on October 20, 2013, 10:47:26 PM
I have always lived in the west and north of that wasteland of southern California so I always knew about Don James. The man WAS the the Northwest.
Hey don't forget about ...
...
Rick Brooks?
First BCS ranks came out today.
Alabama has a commanding lead at the top.
FSU is #2 and Oregon is #3, but a very narrow margin. If both win out Oregon will pass FSU in the computers.
Yeah UCLA and Stanford > Miami and Florida :P
Punishment for DA U to be announced tomorrow morning. :w00t:
They used to be able to cheat their way to national titles, now it doesn't even buy them the ACC. :lol:
I have a buddy who works in the video department at Wisconsin. Last time I saw him he was all full of himself for them having beaten UMASS & Tennessee Tech by such large margins, but then after losses to Arizona State & Ohio State I didn't hear much from him. After their last two wins he'll probably be thumping his chest again.
No one should ever be proud of beating UMass or Tenn Tech :P
Quote from: katmai on October 22, 2013, 09:05:23 PM
No one should ever be proud of beating UMass or Tenn Tech :P
What if they're in high school?
Ohio State Marching Band Does Michael Jackson Moonwalk Like You've Never Seen Before (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/21/ohio-state-michael-jackson-marching-band_n_4136526.html
Funny, but you'd think Penn State would've done it first...
How's Neverland Ranch like an Old Navy sale? BOTH HAVE BOYS JEANS HALF OFF NYUK NYUK NYUK
Har.
Utah at Arizona
Utah came out and said "We think your QB sucks, and we want to see if you can beat us on the ground. We will put 8 in the box, whadya got?"
Kadeem Carey against Utah:
40 carries
236 yards
Arizona isn't good enough to get Carey really into the Heisman picture, and that says something about how messed up the Heisman race has become.
What the hell is going on with uniforms this year? :wacko:
Seedy, your Twerps are an abomination.
The uniform thing started last year for most teams.
Also, my alma mater beat the shit out of Tim's :nelson:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2013, 04:17:24 PM
Seedy, your Twerps are an abomination.
Yeah, but their uniforms today aren't so bad.
If these last two drives are any indication, UCLA and Oregon will require seat belts on and trays in the upright and locked position.
tomorrow i will wear my muck fiami shirt to work
discuss
Quote from: Rasputin on October 31, 2013, 02:47:23 PM
tomorrow i will wear my muck fiami shirt to work
discuss
Doesn't sound very professional. :P
Quote from: Rasputin on October 31, 2013, 02:47:23 PM
tomorrow i will wear my muck fiami shirt to work
discuss
Didn't know you were a Bengals fan.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 31, 2013, 03:19:22 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 31, 2013, 02:47:23 PM
tomorrow i will wear my muck fiami shirt to work
discuss
Doesn't sound very professional. :P
it's not, but no one save gtl boys from jersey and thugs from the wrong side of the tracks like miami.
indeed the overwhelming majority of miami hurricane fans have only set foot on a college campus to jack someone or deliver a pizza
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 31, 2013, 05:55:37 PM
Quote from: Rasputin on October 31, 2013, 02:47:23 PM
tomorrow i will wear my muck fiami shirt to work
discuss
Didn't know you were a Bengals fan.
im not....you are thinking of the other miami
(try the new german td line; they're like hellcats without turrets)
Whichever network is showing Badgers/Hawkeyes was trying to hype Noles and Canes as the best rivalry in college football.
Thoughts?
15 years ago sure, but Canes have been down for last decade so fuck no.
To clarify, I think they were talking more about fans hating each other than a history of good competition.
Course that could have just been a network trying to hype a blowout game.
Seedy: almost got by me, but the Delaware Towson game is tonight. Last year will be avenged and stuff.
Horns up 14-3 over Kansas at the half. UTSA up 24-0 over Tulsa at the half.
:huh: How did FSU score two TDs between my brother's house & my house?
The same way Oklahoma State somehow scored three times between Walgreens and my house, probably. :huh:
E: And now Tech just scored, then OSU is almost instantly inside the Tech 30. Defense? Never heard of it.
Quote from: derspiess on November 02, 2013, 08:41:28 PM
:huh: How did FSU score two TDs between my brother's house & my house?
Soft spot in the zone.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 02, 2013, 08:55:49 PM
The same way Oklahoma State somehow scored three times between Walgreens and my house, probably. :huh:
E: And now Tech just scored, then OSU is almost instantly inside the Tech 30. Defense? Never heard of it.
Yeah, well that's Big 12 for ya. WVU-TCU was an odd game to watch, even for WVU and TCU. WVU won in spite of themselves.
Quote from: derspiess on November 02, 2013, 09:08:43 PM
Yeah, well that's Big 12 for ya. WVU-TCU was an odd game to watch, even for WVU and TCU. WVU won in spite of themselves.
Texas @ WVU next week, yo. The Horns have actually been playing some D since Robinson got a hold of them, so that's nice.
Normally I'd just write it off as a loss, but WVU beat Okie State at home and gave Texas Tech a run for their money at home as well.
I think it'll be a good game.
Navy-ND was one helluva game, over 900 yards of combined offense, exchanged touchdowns and the lead on five straight possessions in the 2nd half, and tons of great running.
Felt so bad for Navy's LT Bradyn Heap; he either blew his assignment block or got schooled when Irish LB Jaylon Smith stayed home, but Navy's 4th down receiver reverse pitch play was ballsy as hell and would've made it but for that.
Quote from: derspiess on November 02, 2013, 03:50:18 PM
Seedy: almost got by me, but the Delaware Towson game is tonight. Last year will be avenged and stuff.
:lol:
QuoteDelaware did the unthinkable, scoring 22 unanswered points in the last 12 minutes of the fourth quarter to stun Towson, 32-31, before an announced 8,741
Tiger Pride and all that. FBS fever: catch it, etc.
FSU hates the university of Miami. We hate their fans even more. Hate is not hyperbole. They are smug. They are loud and obnoxious. They are northeastern. They are everything fsu isnt. If our motto is unconquered, the canes is unashamed.
There is nothing redeeming about the canes or their fans. Most of the fans of the u have no connection to the school. They are simply attracted to the bling. If you dont believe me, the next time you are getting car jacked, ask the dude in the cane cap with the 38 special how much time he actually spent in coral gables and he will respond with some incomprehensible blather about "my boy Irvin" or "my brother sapp, "etc. The only rivalry ive ever seen in any sport that exceeds the hatred FSU has for Miami is the hatred between auburn and Alabama. I don't like the gators. I wouldn't mind seeing them go 0 for 12. I would be happy if Miami got the death penalty.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 03, 2013, 04:01:05 PM
FSU hates the university of Miami. We hate their fans even more. Hate is not hyperbole. They are smug. They are loud and obnoxious. They are northeastern. They are everything fsu isnt. If our motto is unconquered, the canes is unashamed.
There is nothing redeeming about the canes or their fans. Most of the fans of the u have no connection to the school. They are simply attracted to the bling. If you dont believe me, the next time you are getting car jacked, ask the dude in the cane cap with the 38 special how much time he actually spent in coral gables and he will respond with some incomprehensible blather about "my boy Irvin" or "my brother sapp, "etc. The only rivalry ive ever seen in any sport that exceeds the hatred FSU has for Miami is the hatred between auburn and Alabama. I don't like the gators. I wouldn't mind seeing them go 0 for 12. I would be happy if Miami got the death penalty.
That is exactly how Wyoming feels about Colorado State.
Colorado State is loud and obnoxious about football? :wacko:
Cross border rivalries are not even close. When you share a state and a government and tax revenues with those obnoxious fuckers then you can begin to understand.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 03, 2013, 06:39:08 PM
Cross border rivalries are not even close. When you share a state and a government and tax revenues with those obnoxious fuckers then you can begin to understand.
That is something only somebody who does not share a border with Oklahoma would say.
Besides Miami is a private school.
Quote from: Rasputin on November 03, 2013, 06:39:08 PM
Cross border rivalries are not even close. When you share a state and a government and tax revenues with those obnoxious fuckers then you can begin to understand.
Fuck you mister "Oh I don't know about that stuff out west so I will dismiss it out of hand." Wyoming and Colorado state are separated by 60 miles of hate. We (the University of Sainted and Holy Wyoming) have played them since the 1890s and we hate them with a passion that is born of our righteousness and their damnation. We hate them for everything they stand for (including the fact that they were Aggies for so long), we hate them because they believe they are better, we hate their hippies, we hate their inferior ideas. They are soft and effete, they are liberal and pot smoking slackers. We hate that they somehow thing they are western even though they are Boulder wannabees.
Wyoming hates Colorado State, it is the oldest rivalry west of the Mississippi, and it is what defines us.
So fuck you, Mr. Power-boater.
Is the feeling reciprocal in both these cases?
Quote from: Rasputin on November 03, 2013, 06:39:08 PM
Cross border rivalries are not even close. When you share a state and a government and tax revenues with those obnoxious fuckers then you can begin to understand.
You've lost your damn mind.
I don't agree with PLJ's premise re: cross border rivalries, but I believe the FSU-Miami-Florida situation is a bit different. Kind of like the rivalries of the old New York City baseball teams, those Florida schools all share a familiarity-breeds-contempt relationship that other states don't share to such a degree. All those kids at those schools all grew up together, went to school together, played with and against one another, and went through the craziness of big high school programs and recruitment blitzes. Texas, Ohio and California have those relationships, but not nearly to the compacted extent that Florida football does with a handful of premier HS programs. That makes those rivalries substantially more intense than anywhere else in the country; some other rivalries may be more historic, or they're more important to the fans and alumni associations than the players, but FSU-Miami-Florida match-ups are much more personal.
:lol:
There are like 50 guys on OU's roster from Texas. The players know each other, dude.
Oh hey Valmy. CBS is reporting Oliver Luck has interviewed for the AD spot.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24181923/report-oliver-luck-interviews-for-texas-ad-job
Too many of the Wyoming kids are from Colorado for it to not be personal. Wyoming (at least the SE portion) is just a 'burb of Denver anyway, and that rankles. Wyoming vs CSU is not about state rivalries, but rather about who in that 60 miles corridor along highway 287 is better for that year.
That line on the map doesn't matter. Wyoming folks travel south to the big city for such things as a "mall" or "Olive Garden" but when push comes to shove it is about hating those folks, those dirty and worthless folks, who are at the wrong school.
QuoteOh hey Valmy. CBS is reporting Oliver Luck has interviewed for the AD spot.
I can't wait. I never figured he would leave his alma mater for his...erm...law school alma mater :lol:
Homerun hire for Texas, but really a no-brainer once it was clear he was interested.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2013, 08:47:46 PM
I can't wait. I never figured he would leave his alma mater for his...erm...law school alma mater :lol:
Homerun hire for Texas, but really a no-brainer once it was clear he was interested.
Well it was just an interview, not a hiring, unless there's new news I haven't seen yet.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 03, 2013, 08:50:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2013, 08:47:46 PM
I can't wait. I never figured he would leave his alma mater for his...erm...law school alma mater :lol:
Homerun hire for Texas, but really a no-brainer once it was clear he was interested.
Well it was just an interview, not a hiring, unless there's new news I haven't seen yet.
Once Luck suggested he would take the job it has all been a formality IMO. He's the man.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 03, 2013, 08:45:21 PM
:lol:
How many of those kids from all those pissy little
Friday Night Lights schools scattered across that 3rd world country of a state even know one another?
Texas HS ball's got nothing on Florida HS ball.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 03, 2013, 08:52:38 PM
How many of those kids from all those pissy little Friday Night Lights schools scattered across that 3rd world country of a state even know one another?
Texas HS ball's got nothing on Florida HS ball.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2013, 08:51:55 PM
Once Luck suggested he would take the job it has all been a formality IMO. He's the man.
I just hope if/when he comes in, he can get rid of the good ol boy bullshit that's been plaguing the AD for a while now. And Plonsky and whatever that is too. She can also go away.
E: Speaking of OU and recruiting Texas, there's a disturbing trend of San Antonio players going up to that hellhole.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 03, 2013, 08:54:21 PM
:lol:
What are you, aping 11Bravo tonight? You got an alternate viewpoint, post that shit. Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up, playa.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 03, 2013, 08:58:04 PM
What are you, aping 11Bravo tonight? You got an alternate viewpoint, post that shit. Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up, playa.
The idea that OU and Texas don't recruit the same areas and schools is just laughably stupid. There's not really much to say about it.
It is hard for me to defend Texas HS football these days. None of the schools who live mainly on Texas recruits have done shit for awhile and the epidemic of spread offenses throughout the state has made our players soft IMO. We might not be the Kings of High School football anymore.
Mack has made them soft at Texas. The players themselves are fine when they go to other places, like fuckin Baylor right now, for example. <_< Briles isn't messing around up there, at least on O.
I would like to thank every school in Texas that fucked up in not recruiting Kenny Guiton. Thanks!
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 03, 2013, 09:04:31 PM
I would like to thank every school in Texas that fucked up in not recruiting Kenny Guiton. Thanks!
His offer list is great:
QuoteOhio State Verbal Yes 01/31/2009
Houston No Interest Yes None
Iowa State No Interest Yes None
Kansas No Interest Yes None
Kansas State No Interest No None
Northwestern No Interest Yes None
Rice No Interest Yes None
Ohio State and just...others.
Quote from: PDH on November 03, 2013, 08:47:02 PM
Wyoming folks travel south to the big city for such things as a "mall" or "Olive Garden"
:lol:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 03, 2013, 09:00:02 PM
The idea that OU and Texas don't recruit the same areas and schools is just laughably stupid. There's not really much to say about it.
Funny, but that's not what I said.
#1, I said I disagreed with PLJs statement regarding cross-state rivalries.
#2, I said:
QuoteTexas, Ohio and California have those relationships, but not nearly to the compacted extent that Florida football does with a handful of premier HS programs.
Fucking Longhorn fans :rolleyes: More mouthbreathingly blinded and overly sensitive than Regis Philbin and Sister Constance's Holy Trinity Bridge Club for the Irish.
You and Valmy may now continue to hook each others' asses until your sphincters are bleeding burnt orange.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 03, 2013, 09:15:32 PM
You and Valmy may now continue to hook each others' asses until your sphincters are bleeding burnt orange.
Pfffft be quiet and enjoy Notre Dame's big win over Navy.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2013, 09:17:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 03, 2013, 09:15:32 PM
You and Valmy may now continue to hook each others' asses until your sphincters are bleeding burnt orange.
Pfffft be quiet and enjoy Notre Dame's big win over Navy.
I can't. It's like fratricide.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2013, 09:17:08 PM
Pfffft be quiet and enjoy Notre Dame's big win over Navy.
Navy should have won that. Too bad.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 03, 2013, 09:15:32 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 03, 2013, 09:00:02 PM
The idea that OU and Texas don't recruit the same areas and schools is just laughably stupid. There's not really much to say about it.
Funny, but that's not what I said.
#1, I said I disagreed with PLJs statement regarding cross-state rivalries.
#2, I said:
QuoteTexas, Ohio and California have those relationships, but not nearly to the compacted extent that Florida football does with a handful of premier HS programs.
Well, you're right about the first one, but wrong about the second, especially about California and their football factory schools that everyone recruits from. Texas is indeed more spread out, but OU and Texas recruit the same schools and the same guys constantly. The players knowing each other is definitely one of the things that helps the rivalry along, along with Oklahoma and the people who live there, of course, being a horrible blight on the planet.
QuoteFucking Longhorn fans :rolleyes: More mouthbreathingly blinded and overly sensitive than Regis Philbin and Sister Constance's Holy Trinity Bridge Club for the Irish.
You and Valmy may now continue to hook each others' asses until your sphincters are bleeding burnt orange.
You seem mad.
E: Why the hell am I talking about this with some Domer type anyway? Don't you have a bowl game loss to get ready for? Fake girlfriends to call?
E2: Did you drop the Gators, btw? Muschamp is going to get himself shitcanned. Maybe he can be the DC for the new guy at Texas.
E3: Oh speaking of Texas recruiting fuckups they were just showing where Andrew Luck grew up!
Florida is paying the price for having hotter coeds than TOSU.
Andrew Luck is to Mack Brown what Drew Brees was to John Mackovic. Texas seems to be due one enormous humiliating wiff at least once a coaching tenure. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2013, 09:50:50 PM
Andrew Luck is to Mack Brown what Drew Brees was to John Mackovic. Texas seems to be due one enormous humiliating wiff at least once a coaching tenure. :lol:
Check out The List:
QuoteDrew Brees (Saints) – Austin Westlake
Andy Dalton (Bengals) – Katy
Matt Flynn (Raiders) – Tyler Lee
Nick Foles (Eagles) - Austin Westlake
Robert Griffin III (Redskins) – Copperas Cove
Case Keenum (Texans) – Abilene Wylie
Andrew Luck (Colts) – Houston Stratford
Christian Ponder (Vikings) – Colleyville Heritage
Matthew Stafford (Lions) – Highland Park
Ryan Tannehill (Dolphins) – Big Spring
Not a single one.
Luck and Brees were different because they were big time recruits who wanted to come here. That is not true for the others as far as I know.
Sure, but you'd think they'd be able to get one of those guys. Just one. I'm not greedy. ;)
E: Really though, they were on track pretty well, Gilbert just melted down or whatever that was and it all went bad.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2013, 08:13:25 PM
Is the feeling reciprocal in both these cases?
I lived in Ft. Collins, and I don't think most people at Colorado State are aware that there is even a university of some kind in Wyoming.
I think this is one of those "rivalries" where one side is really all jacked up and the other is mostly "WTF?"
Do they at least realize there's a university at Colorado St? :puff:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 03, 2013, 09:28:16 PM
Texas is indeed more spread out, but OU and Texas recruit the same schools and the same guys constantly. The players knowing each other is definitely one of the things that helps the rivalry along, along with Oklahoma and the people who live there, of course, being a horrible blight on the planet.
That must explain the 42 Texas on the OU roster, and the 2 Oklahomans on Texas' roster. I bet it's a fallback school.
QuoteE: Why the hell am I talking about this with some Domer type anyway? Don't you have a bowl game loss to get ready for? Fake girlfriends to call?
Weak. I have no girlfriends, fake or otherwise.
QuoteE2: Did you drop the Gators, btw? Muschamp is going to get himself shitcanned. Maybe he can be the DC for the new guy at Texas.
No, he won't get fired. Not for losing his starting quarterback so early in the season. But losing to Georgia doesn't help.
QuoteE3: Oh speaking of Texas recruiting fuckups they were just showing where Andrew Luck grew up!
Yahoo. Must be nice growing up in a where they don't have women's health clinics. No whore pills means no whores. Don't mess with Texas, etc.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2013, 12:31:39 AM
That must explain the 42 Texas on the OU roster, and the 2 Oklahomans on Texas' roster. I bet it's a fallback school.
Yes....the 42 Texans on OUs roster does explain why the players know each other.....
QuoteWeak. I have no girlfriends, fake or otherwise.
No bowl game wins either then?
QuoteNo, he won't get fired. Not for losing his starting quarterback so early in the season. But losing to Georgia doesn't help.
Losing to Georgia every year will get you fired. Even Zook beat Georgia. E: You probably didn't know that though, I guess.
QuoteYahoo. Must be nice growing up in a where they don't have women's health clinics. No whore pills means no whores. Don't mess with Texas, etc.
The hell are you bleating about now?
E: As fun as this is, I gotta go to work in the morning. Night, Seedy. Have sweet Tebow dreams.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 04, 2013, 12:48:10 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2013, 12:31:39 AM
That must explain the 42 Texas on the OU roster, and the 2 Oklahomans on Texas' roster. I bet it's a fallback school.
Yes....the 42 Texans on OUs roster does explain why the players know each other.....
Once again, I never said they didn't. Now, since I stated that I didn't agree with PLJ on cross-border rivalries but you felt compelled to be insulted and brought up OK-UT anyway, how many in-state rivalries does Texas have with Texas schools to the degree that FSU-Miami-Florida have when it comes to HS programs? A&M? They recruit nationally. Texas Tech and TCU? Maybe for the last 10 years have they even been relevant. Houston? Paging David Klinger, you're needed in Major Appliances. Nothing.
Your blinkered pro-Texas philistinism to the point that any critique--or gasp--that any state has something better on them only indicts your own douchebagginess. So knock it off. You people are worse than Siegy-brand Jews. It's unfortunate that poor Valmy has to be associated with you.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 04, 2013, 12:48:10 AM
E: As fun as this is, I gotta go to work in the morning. Night, Seedy. Have sweet Tebow dreams.
Oh, so now you're getting personal. Longhorn fans.
Shouldn't have refreshed before closing the laptop. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2013, 01:04:38 AM
Once again, I never said they didn't. Now, since I stated that I didn't agree with PLJ on cross-border rivalries but you felt compelled to be insulted and brought up OK-UT anyway, how many in-state rivalries does Texas have with Texas schools to the degree that FSU-Miami-Florida have when it comes to HS programs? A&M? They recruit nationally. Texas Tech and TCU? Maybe for the last 10 years have they even been relevant. Houston? Paging David Klinger, you're needed in Major Appliances. Nothing.
I didn't get insulted, and I don't think it's limited to Texas - OU. I disagreed that cross border rivalries can't have as much hate as in state games. You wanted to start babbling about kids coming from the same places though, and the only one I'm familiar with as far as that is concerned is Texas - OU. Half of OUs team comes straight from Texas. A shitload of OU fans live in Texas. OU fans attack Texas fans and try to rip their balls off. There's hate there.
And as far as your list is concerned, the only one would be A&M, but that one is dead for the time being, and was dominated by one school. Texas - OU is the main rivalry for both schools at this point in time.
QuoteYour blinkered pro-Texas philistinism to the point that any critique--or gasp--that any state has something better on them only indicts your own douchebagginess. So knock it off. You people are worse than Siegy-brand Jews. It's unfortunate that poor Valmy has to be associated with you.
Wat? There are most definitely other cross border rivalries that can generate all sorts of hate that don't involve Texas or the dirt burglars. I don't know what the recruiting is like in, say, Ohio State vs. Michigan though, so I can't talk about those with you.
Now what the hell was that about women's clinics and Andrew Luck?
QuoteOh, so now you're getting personal. Longhorn fans.
You're right. Your feelings about Tim are your business.
He strikes me as an anti-choicer. It's his throwing motion. Frank Reich was the same way, and he's still all up in the 700 Club.
Luck? He just seems super dorky to me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2013, 01:21:06 AM
He strikes me as an anti-choicer. It's his throwing motion. Frank Reich was the same way, and he's still all up in the 700 Club.
Cuz!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2013, 01:21:06 AM
Frank Reich
With that name, you'd certainly expect fascist tendencies to start with.
LOL Texas is ranked between BYU and Ole Miss in the BCS. WAY TO RUB IT IN GUYS
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rankings/bcs
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2013, 01:04:38 AM
A&M? They recruit nationally.
They do?
In any case I no longer have to endure associating with them. The SEC can enjoy their bizarre combination of a simultaneous raging inferiority and superiority complexes.
Quote from: Valmy on November 04, 2013, 11:47:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2013, 01:04:38 AM
A&M? They recruit nationally.
They do?
Or at least they used to once upon a time. Do they take Longhorn rejects?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2013, 01:25:35 AM
Or at least they used to once upon a time. Do they take Longhorn rejects?
Well, yes, but they also get a lot of the guys they want.
A&M hasn't ever been a big national recruiter that I'm aware of. Even when they were competing with SMU for best athlete salaries in the 80s (a competition they lost, but still got caught doing), their teams were predominantly from Texas, just like they are now.
E: Well, I guess you could count Louisiana as "national." They regularly get players from there.
Arizona is riding a three game winning streak into this weekends game with UCLA.
Earlier this year they had a three game wining streak going into a match up with Washington that everyone said would be the real test to see if Arizona was for real. Well, after that game, the answer seemed to be "not so much", as Washington stomped on the Wildcats.
But since then...well, it's been interesting. The big issue early in the year was QB play. Senior QB Denker was simply not Pac-12 good enough. Through his first four games he was 45/90 for 445 yards, 2 TDs, and 2 INTs. Abysmal.
But something clicked during the USC loss. Denker seemed to figure it out, or suddenly adjust to the speed of D1 football. Since then, he has gone 91 for 144 for 1,057 yards, seven TDs and one interception.
And he has put on a clinic on how to run the ball in a spread read option offense when the defense is committed to containing one of the very best running backs in the country. Denker is not that fast, but he has had huge games running the read option, as everyone collapses on Carey and Denker goes off tackle.
Now, these last three games have been wins against Utah (pretty good), Colorado (terrible) and Cal (makes Colorado look good), so once again...who knows, really?
What is promising is that the Arizona offense has improved enough that they are going to make defenses work again. Denker can complete enough passes to make it hard to put eight in the box, and he can certainly run well enough to make selling out against Carey problematic.
Whether that is enough to beat the quality teams coming up (UCLA, WSU, Oregon, ASU) of course remains to be seen. I am hoping for 2-2.
UCLA is winnable, but hardly certain.
WSU the same
Oregon...yeah, not so much
ASU - Greatly improved team, but they are ASU, so winnable.
Prediction:
4-0: 5%
3-1: 20%
2-2: 55%
1-3: 15%
0-4: 5%
1-3 is 60% likely, the only gimme is Wazzu.
Betting opportunity. :ph34r:
Valmy: Steve Patterson is the new AD.
I had to google him :blush: He is (was) Arizona State's AD, so maybe this makes Berk happy too. Supposedly as the president of the Trailblazers, dude shitcanned 108 people in his first year. :ph34r:
Quote from: katmai on November 05, 2013, 12:17:25 PM
1-3 is 60% likely, the only gimme is Wazzu.
So why would you think that the likely result is a loss for every non-gimme game?
Quote from: Berkut on November 05, 2013, 12:59:43 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 05, 2013, 12:17:25 PM
1-3 is 60% likely, the only gimme is Wazzu.
So why would you think that the likely result is a loss for every non-gimme game?
I think UCLA is better than you give em credit, and after the curb stomping on Huskies I would say the same for Sun Devils.
And well, Oregon is Oregon :D
Don't get me wrong Berkie, I hope I'm wrong and you guys run the table, but after watching Cats vs Dawgs and then how UDub fared vs ASU and Oregon...
Quote from: katmai on November 05, 2013, 01:27:25 PM
Don't get me wrong Berkie, I hope I'm wrong and you guys run the table, but after watching Cats vs Dawgs and then how UDub fared vs ASU and Oregon...
Well, if the Cats who played against Washington show up for any of those games, they will be lucky to be 1-3.
But that was pretty much my point in my post - Denker has stepped up a LOT since then. Now, maybe that is because he was playing against bad teams, in which case we are going to be 1-3 very likely. But I don't think that is actually the case.
Yeah I haven't seen them since that UW game except for the USC one, so I'll defer to you on how they have stepped up their game.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 05, 2013, 12:51:08 PM
Valmy: Steve Patterson is the new AD.
Oh for fucksake. How did UT blow that? I know Patterson impressed them with his record of firing people at an awesome rate but Luck did miracles at WV. GODDAMMIT.
Quote from: Valmy on November 05, 2013, 03:26:51 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 05, 2013, 12:51:08 PM
Valmy: Steve Patterson is the new AD.
Oh for fucksake. How did UT blow that? I know Patterson impressed them with his record of firing people at an awesome rate but Luck did miracles at WV. GODDAMMIT.
You should go post in the Fuck You Steve Patterson thread on Shaggybevo. It was started immediately.
E: Or maybe when the servers stop melting down over there. :lol:
This is some high quality cheese right here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdyHnpDnFfo
I will turn all Languishites except katmai into Arizona fans. It is our destiny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1qUehCcUhA
Why not Katmai, he's the most vulnerable as he's already a fan of a mediocre Pac school. :P
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2013, 01:25:42 AM
I will turn all Languishites except katmai into Arizona fans. It is our destiny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1qUehCcUhA
Pass.
Quote from: Berkut on November 07, 2013, 01:25:42 AM
I will turn all Languishites except katmai into Arizona fans. It is our destiny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1qUehCcUhA
Needs more slo mo shots of students high tenning like girls.
AZ can definitely compete in the hot cheerleaders department...
So I was all outraged the Big 12's big top ten matchup was pushed to tier 2...but then I saw the ESPN game was a top five matchup. Well played PAC 12, well played.
Man Baylor is sorta looking for real tonight :ph34r:
Pfft they play a cupcake schedule in a cupcake conference.
Quote from: katmai on November 07, 2013, 10:22:46 PM
Pfft they play a cupcake schedule in a cupcake conference.
True but Oregon is finally getting exposed.
:lol: Two points to Valmy for the reversal.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2013, 10:26:21 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 07, 2013, 10:22:46 PM
Pfft they play a cupcake schedule in a cupcake conference.
True but Oregon is finally getting exposed.
:rolleyes:
Not really exposed, just another game of Stanford knowing don't let the Ducks have the ball.
Quote from: Valmy on November 07, 2013, 10:26:21 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 07, 2013, 10:22:46 PM
Pfft they play a cupcake schedule in a cupcake conference.
True but Oregon is finally getting exposed.
Lemonjello will be quite pleased.
:lol:
I am indeed....I'm thinking possible January Pasadena road trip?
Stanford continues their god given mission of making sure that Oregon does not play for a National Championship.
On the one hand, I love seeing my second favorite Pac-12 team beat up on my second most hated.
On the other hand...man, the Pac-12 just does a great job of beating ourselves up...
I'm going to a college football game tomorrow. UAB at Marshall. WOOO! :mellow:
I look forward to seeing Wyoming's spanking of Fresno State run across my TV screen ticker tomorrow.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 08, 2013, 10:45:24 PM
I look forward to seeing Wyoming's spanking of Fresno State run across my TV screen ticker tomorrow.
Oh God, I hope so.
Wyoming fired its DC after giving up a 2nd straight 50 point loss...the Cowboys are hurting. Hell, the Cowboys start off hurting, and they go downhill from there.
Hmm...wonder how this will all shake out in the end.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/08/federal-judge-oks-amateurism-and-likeness-lawsuit-against-ncaa/
UTSA just beat Tulane to get to 5 - 5 (4 - 2). Too bad about the bodybag OOC games they played to start the season. Wish they had done it like Texas State and only scheduled one of those.
Nice start, guys.
West Virginia will be overwhelmed by Texas' special teams of powah.
Damn that looked bad on the replay.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 09, 2013, 07:24:36 PM
Damn that looked bad on the replay.
Whaley? Yeah that was really bad.
Well at least the D showed up.
QuoteWhaley? Yeah that was really bad.
Yeah. Maybe he'll get lucky and it wasn't as bad as it appeared.
:( I wish my team had a D
Ole Miss- bowl eligible AGIN.
Hotty Toddy.
The defense has kept this from being a debacle. Fumble! Texas ball!
Damn, Trickett got smashed. That's like the 5th sack already too, I think.
Man the offense just cannot get anything going
Greg Robinson should be coach of the year, I just cannot believe what he has been able to do in such a short time
Everyone staying up to watch the Arizona-UCLA game?
What in the name of Bert Jones is going on down there. Obviously the Tigers are shaving points because fumbles like that simply DO NOT HAPPEN.
While I love the powder blues, it will be past my bedtime.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 09, 2013, 08:30:15 PM
While I love the powder blues, it will be past my bedtime.
Yeah, that kid Barr is the best defensive player in the country not named Clowney. Should be interesting to see them try to contain Berkut's freakshow of a PlayStation running back Carey.
I give up.
Spicey are you watching this? How crazy is this game eh?
I hope ND pulverizes Pitt. Fuck you Mark May.
Quote from: Berkut on November 09, 2013, 08:28:56 PM
Everyone staying up to watch the Arizona-UCLA game?
I'll be switching over after UW crushes the Buffs.
Your welcome PeeDee.
I can't believe they're only down by 6 at the half. Since throwing the ball seems to not be an option with a combination of good D by WVU and Case being......inaccurate.....they should get in on some read option action with Swoopes. Also because I want to see some read option with Swoopes. Swoooooooooooopes. No throwing by Swoopes though.
I salute the Pokes. Sure they give up 50 points a game. Sure their D-coordinator was a DII coach last year and just got promoted from D-Line coach, sure they suck massive donkey balls, but goddammit they are my team.
For MB I am having a couple of sips of Calvados - a friend brought me a bottle back from a conference - it will make Wyoming play as if Urban Meyer himself was coaching the team.
Quote from: PDH on November 09, 2013, 09:15:57 PM
I salute the Pokes. Sure they give up 50 points a game. Sure their D-coordinator was a DII coach last year and just got promoted from D-Line coach, sure they suck massive donkey balls, but goddammit they are my team.
For MB I am having a couple of sips of Calvados - a friend brought me a bottle back from a conference - it will make Wyoming play as if Urban Meyer himself was coaching the team.
:)
May Saint Urban bless the Cowboys against Fresno St and the Archenemy of Mankind, Boise State next week.
Well. I was wrong. That was a nice throw by Case. Got back home just in time.
Bustin' Joe Bergeron!
Well, at least Wyoming has led in this game.
Quote from: Berkut on November 09, 2013, 08:28:56 PM
Everyone staying up to watch the Arizona-UCLA game?
I would need some more inspirational videos.
Going to OT tied at 40. Man I cannot believe this game.
First OT game for Texas since 1996. First OT game ever for MB
:punk: Steve Edmond decided he wanted to go home with a W.
Wow, that was a hell of a game. Just a few too many mistakes by Arizona.
I sure got fucking sick of seeing Hundley's dad though.
Not quite as sick as I got of watching that freshman make the Cats look like a bunch of chumps though.
Usually I like the Seminoles, but this schedule cupcakes and put up 50 points on them routine is getting old.
BCS standings.
Quote1 Alabama .9958
2 Florida State .9619
3 Ohio State .8926
4 Stanford .8689
5 Baylor .8618
6 Oregon .7665
7 Auburn .7206
8 Clemson .7200
9 Missouri .7118
10 South Carolina .5584
11 Texas A&M .5473
12 Oklahoma State .4671
13 UCLA .4548
14 Fresno State .4317
15 Northern Illinois .3505
16 Michigan State .3417
17 UCF .3411
18 Oklahoma .2926
19 Arizona State .2833
20 Louisville .2806
21 LSU .2757
22 Wisconsin .2612
23 Miami (FL) .1471
24 Texas .1092
25 Georgia .0857
Sneaking back into the top 25 after their victory over mighty Appalachian State. :showoff:
I finally went to my first college football game of the year this weekend: UAB at Marshall :mellow:
Quote from: derspiess on November 12, 2013, 10:56:18 AM
I finally went to my first college football game of the year this weekend: UAB at Marshall :mellow:
My condolences.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 12, 2013, 01:49:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 12, 2013, 10:56:18 AM
I finally went to my first college football game of the year this weekend: UAB at Marshall :mellow:
My condolences.
Hey, I got to sit in the "luxury" box :D
Anywho, today is the one day of the year it's appropriate for Marshall fans to go on & on about the 1970 plane crash, given that it happened on November 14. And it looks like they're beating up on another 2-win team tonight.
Err, they were until that fumble/Tulsa TD. Now it's a game again. Not that there's anyone at the game to witness it. They draw shittier crowds than Marshall :lol:
And holy shit, another fumble/TD by Tulsa. Marshall's lead is cut to 3 :lol:
:hmm: My regular score checks are making me lean toward just deleting this "game" off the dvr when I get home.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 16, 2013, 05:04:47 PM
:hmm: My regular score checks are making me lean toward just deleting this "game" off /the dvr when I get
It is closer than the score indicates :P
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 16, 2013, 05:04:47 PM
:hmm: My regular score checks are making me lean toward just deleting this "game" off the dvr when I get home.
I know the feeling.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2013, 05:36:35 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 16, 2013, 05:04:47 PM
:hmm: My regular score checks are making me lean toward just deleting this "game" off /the dvr when I get
It is closer than the score indicates :P
Talk to me about the spread. :P
Ah a roughing the punter in a key situation. Imagine that :bleeding:
Echols?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 16, 2013, 05:56:23 PM
Echols?
No it was about three guys at once. A real team effort.
And another ugly pick by McCoy. This could get ugly now.
TD Oklahoma State. 38-13 and the rout is on.
Edit: And ANOTHER pick by McCoy. Put in Swoopes :lol:
:lol: Soooooo does Mack have that "Shit, I'm gonna get fired" look over there on the sidelines yet?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 16, 2013, 06:09:54 PM
:lol: Soooooo does Mack have that "Shit, I'm gonna get fired" look over there on the sidelines yet?
He is grasping at straws now. You know he is going to say Texas can still win the Big 12 if they beat Tech and Baylor in the post game press conference. But this is his 8th home loss to ranked opponents in a row.
McCoy is coming out again. I don't get it, the game is lost. Texas' run-first possession offense is not putting up four touchdowns in one quarter.
Quote from: katmai on November 05, 2013, 12:17:25 PM
1-3 is 60% likely, the only gimme is Wazzu.
And I was even wrong about this! Sorry berkie.
Got to hand it to Mike Gundy it was sure nice of him to call off the dogs, they could have really humiliated Texas if they wanted.
Not to worry. Briles will make up for it.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 16, 2013, 06:09:54 PM
:lol: Soooooo does Mack have that "Shit, I'm gonna get fired" look over there on the sidelines yet?
Actually here it is in GIF form:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net%2Fphotos%2Flarge%2F822243245.gif&hash=022ca92178ba6407ac84aba21bdfb5735e390b02)
There is a man knowing his career had just been picked off and being run back for a touchdown.
:lmfao:
E: I like how everyone else is just watching while Mack is all NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Hey check out what Duke did to Miami.
Also, Valmy, looks like Garrett Gilbert had another big game too. Good for him.
I felt bad for Mack.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 16, 2013, 07:27:57 PM
Hey check out what Duke did to Miami.
Check out Texas Tech and Baylor!
That 2nd half of Georgia at Auburn. Wow. Just wow.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2013, 07:52:33 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 16, 2013, 07:27:57 PM
Hey check out what Duke did to Miami.
Check out Texas Tech and Baylor!
I think I kinda want Baylor to win out because....it's Baylor.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 16, 2013, 08:00:51 PM
That 2nd half of Georgia at Auburn. Wow. Just wow.
That made me a little sick to my stomach. Could this season be any more nightmarish for Georgia?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 16, 2013, 07:27:57 PM
Also, Valmy, looks like Garrett Gilbert had another big game too. Good for him.
I have thought about Garrett a couple times this year. He was this big time spread offense QB we brought in to replace Colt McCoy and run a spread offense. Then as soon as he gets his chance we switch to this power running game thing. Is it any wonder he was such a failure and then went to a spread team and finds success? Probably Mack Brown's fault there, not scheming to his recruit's strengths.
I think June Jones still rolls with the run and shoot up at SMU, but either way it's a spread-y pass happy O that plays to Gilberts strengths, so like you I'm not particularly surprised by his success. It took him a year to get unfucked by a real coach, then this year he's doing quite well.
E: Are there any other Run and Shoot offenses left out there?
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2013, 09:31:16 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 16, 2013, 08:00:51 PM
That 2nd half of Georgia at Auburn. Wow. Just wow.
That made me a little sick to my stomach. Could this season be any more nightmarish for Georgia?
Yeah, it's been nightmare season of ruined expectations; on the other hand, Auburn's having one hell of a season. I really thought Georgia had this one in the bag at the end, though--even though I honestly didn't think Murray got in on that TD, but the video was inconclusive. Auburn needed this one: if they lost it, they'd be going into bowl season with back-to-back ranked losses after next week's inevitable date with losing destiny.
Quote"They find a way to win," said Gus Malzahn, Auburn's first-year coach. "This team has the `it' factor. That's just the bottom line."
He had simple plans for celebration.
"This is definitely a Waffle House night," Malzahn said.
Now that's a coach I could play for.
'SC looks like they will upset Cardinals making sure no Pac-12 in last BCS game.
Can someone give me an Idiot's Guide to the run and shoot?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2013, 12:53:51 AM
Can someone give me an Idiot's Guide to the run and shoot?
1 running back, 4 wr/slotbacks (think Darren Sproles of New Orleans)
pre snap one of the WR/SB would go in motion trying to create mismatch with defense.
Receivers are expected to change their route running after seeing what the Defender is doing.
if only 5 defenders in the box handoff to RB.
Houston Cougars in late 80's ran it, as did the Warren Moon Oilers of 80's.
Danke
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2013, 12:53:51 AM
Can someone give me an Idiot's Guide to the run and shoot?
Buddy Ryan used to call it the "Chuck and Duck". Pretty much summed it up.
Quote from: katmai on November 16, 2013, 06:39:40 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 05, 2013, 12:17:25 PM
1-3 is 60% likely, the only gimme is Wazzu.
And I was even wrong about this! Sorry berkie.
Yeah, 0-4, here we come. Fire RR!
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2013, 09:31:16 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 16, 2013, 08:00:51 PM
That 2nd half of Georgia at Auburn. Wow. Just wow.
That made me a little sick to my stomach. Could this season be any more nightmarish for Georgia?
Yeah, I didn't really have a dog in that fight, but even I felt a bit bad for Georgia there at the end, after coming back the way they did. OTOH, I have to agree with Seedy that I don't think Murray actually got to the goal line before being down.
This happened on Saturday:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.minus.com%2FibwlysThGcazWx.gif&hash=235e3ffc7c368af66bcbab3b726000a18220f4d7)
UCF WR JJ Worton. Helluva catch. The Knights were down by 7 with about 1:00 left in the game.
Quote from: katmai on November 16, 2013, 06:39:40 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 05, 2013, 12:17:25 PM
1-3 is 60% likely, the only gimme is Wazzu.
And I was even wrong about this! Sorry berkie.
After some time to reflect, I've realized that this isn't as bad a setback as I thought, and there is really still a lot of hope left this year and season.
Have you seen how Aaron Gordon is playing? And with McConnell being the true PG this team has needed desperately, I think the Cats could really go far this year, even after that disaster against WSU.
So, if either Alabama or Florida st. loses a game and both Ohio St. and Baylor win out, which team do you guys think should be in the championship game?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2013, 06:30:15 AM
So, if either Alabama or Florida st. loses a game and both Ohio St. and Baylor win out, which team do you guys think should be in the championship game?
Alabama. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2013, 06:35:56 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2013, 06:30:15 AM
So, if either Alabama or Florida st. loses a game and both Ohio St. and Baylor win out, which team do you guys think should be in the championship game?
Alabama. :P
:lol: Touché
EDIT: Ok, let me put it this way. If you had to choose between Baylor or Ohio st. making it into the championship game (imagine your own scenario) which would you choose?
I suspect Ohio St. is the better team, but I also hate them, so voting for Baylor.
Though actually, if Alabama did lose a game it would probably be to Auburn or Missouri and would cost them the SEC title. As both of those teams have only one loss, it would be hard to justify putting Alabama up instead of them. :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2013, 06:37:42 AM
EDIT: Ok, let me put it this way. If you had to choose between Baylor or Ohio st. making it into the championship game (imagine your own scenario) which would you choose?
I sort of want to see what Baylor does against Oklahoma State first.
If both win out Baylor will have played the better schedule so I pick them.
Quote from: sbr on November 18, 2013, 08:42:06 AM
If both win out Baylor will have played the better schedule so I pick them.
And they've done it outscoring opponents by over 40 points a game. I withdraw my earlier reservations- Baylor over Ohio St.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 18, 2013, 06:30:15 AM
So, if either Alabama or Florida st. loses a game and both Ohio St. and Baylor win out, which team do you guys think should be in the championship game?
Baylor.
Ugh, and Alabama/Ohio State national championship would be like watching two Bond villains go at it.
That would be pretty cool, especially if it was Jaws vs. Oddjob.
Well, one thing I gotta give Mack credit for is how good he is with the PR part of the job, even now. They were just showing something on the LHN where this kid shows up in Mack's office, and he ends up getting pictures wearing the golden hat and a new Horns jersey, feet up on Mack's desk, flashing the hook em horns. Also got to get a shot holding Ricky Williams Heisman. Things like that.
E: Well I don't know whos Heisman it was. Maybe Earl Campbells. Either way. Photo with a Heisman trophy. Cool.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2013, 08:55:31 AM
And they've done it outscoring opponents by over 40 points a game.
You make that sound like a good thing.
This year is the 30th anniversary of quite possiby the worst college football game ever played; the 1983 Oregon/Oregon State Civil War.
In a freezing near monsoon there were 5 interceptions, 11 fumbles (6 recovered by defense), 4 missed field goals, 2 Oregon TDs called back on penalties, and enough boneheaed plays to make it the last 0-0 tie in NCAA 1-A football.
Florida just lost to Georgia Southern.
Won $20 bucks on the Iowa Michigan game. I had Iowa and 7.5 points. :punk:
Berkut, maybe it's not quite time to focus on basketball just yet.
Wyoming's season has blown up. A 3-1 start, 4-2 record midway through the season has led to this - 4-6 after the last four weeks. Bad is an understatement, this team nosedived.
This week, against winless Hawaii, Wyoming again showed that they have no defense and gave up 624 yards. Luckily, neither does Hawaii. The final? Well, in regulation it was 56-56. Wyoming won 59-56 by finally stopping the Rainbow Warriors. Brett Smith is the lone highlight for Wyoming. 498 passing yards, 7 TDs. 142 rushing yards, 1 TD. That is 640 of Wyoming's 793 yards. That is right, it took 793 yards to win...
5-6 now. I pray for a loss next week. This team should not be going to a bowl.
-edit- They keep changing the stat line... this one might not be right either...
Looks like UTSA just beat North Texas, giving them their 6th win and bowl eligibility. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 23, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
Berkut, maybe it's not quite time to focus on basketball just yet.
Fucking-A. I totally saw that coming.
Well, not really. Or at all. I thought Arizona was going to get punked.
Freaking Carey should be in the Heisman conversation. Criminal that he is not.
Arizona put a good old fashioned spanking on Oregon. Rodriguez does know how to build a running game.
How did that team lose to WSU?
Mike Leach bewitched them with his hips.
I hear Michigan might be looking to ask RR back...:P
Quote from: Berkut on November 23, 2013, 07:58:20 PM
I hear Michigan might be looking to ask RR back...:P
he'd never give up a head coaching job to come back as an offensive coordinator... :P
I think Michigan is going to get thumped next week worse than they did in RR's worst version (38-3) of The Game, though. OSU is peaking, and Michigan is still pounding its head against a wall. If Hoke keeps Borges after this season, then he is putting his own job on the line next year.
Brady should have stayed at SJSU. He would get hot and cold running beach babes and constant MW championship games.
Quote from: Berkut on November 23, 2013, 07:01:08 PM
Freaking Carey should be in the Heisman conversation. Criminal that he is not.
I totally agree. All that kid has done is run for miles, and then some.
Baylor's shitting the bed, and how.
So, if Florida State and Ohio State both somehow stumble and lose a game, who among the 1-loss teams should be in line to play Alabama?
Quote from: dps on November 24, 2013, 06:46:56 AM
So, if Florida State and Ohio State both somehow stumble and lose a game, who among the 1-loss teams should be in line to play Alabama?
Auburn is first in line and Missouri is second in line. :contract:
Heck in that situation(your two lose and Alabama still undefeated) I could go with Florida St, as long as they still win the ACC.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 24, 2013, 08:41:32 AM
Quote from: dps on November 24, 2013, 06:46:56 AM
So, if Florida State and Ohio State both somehow stumble and lose a game, who among the 1-loss teams should be in line to play Alabama?
Auburn is first in line and Missouri is second in line. :contract:
No, because my post impliticly assumed that Alabama wins out, which means Auburn would have 2 losses.
Pretty sure he means Alabama will be playing Auburn (Iron Bowl) and then Missouri (SECCG).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 24, 2013, 08:41:32 AM
Heck in that situation(your two lose and Alabama still undefeated) I could go with Florida St, as long as they still win the ACC.
Oklahoma State! Their coach is a man and well over 40.
But slightly less orange.
im thinking we should be able to pick up a win in the swamp this year
Since one of the Ga Southern players fainted on the one yard line, Florida was just trying to make it fair.
:D if ever a picture was worth a thousand words.
Here's a gif of it:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.minus.com%2FibtsORtvQDCgyX.gif&hash=6c5ddbbcf2eb12d0727149687fcc11167396a1dd)
When I first saw the still photo, I was thinking maybe they were just int he process of running into each other and it just looked weird. Nope.
E: Oh. Also: Andre Williams 4 Heisman if Winston is too rapey.
What'd they do, get their face masks accidentally locked up?
Bring back Zook
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2013, 02:55:54 PM
What'd they do, get their face masks accidentally locked up?
Guess not.
QuoteGAINESVILLE, Fla. -- Before video of the play made the rounds in social media, Florida Gators players and coaches had a good laugh over Saturday's now-infamous Gator-on-Gator block.
In the wake of Florida's devastating loss to FCS member Georgia Southern, the block offered some much-needed comic relief.
"I thought it was comical," senior offensive guard Jon Halapio said on Tuesday. "We were all in the locker room joking around about it.
"I've never seen anything like it."
It was the first play of the second half, and senior wide receiver Solomon Patton took a jet sweep off right tackle. Senior center Jonotthan Harrison pulled and got locked up with junior wide receiver Quinton Dunbar. The two Gators remained engaged throughout the play, seemingly unaware of each other's orange-and-blue uniforms.
"Perfect technique and everything," Halapio said. "[Harrison] should have [pancaked him]. He got in his way."
Florida offensive coordinator Brent Pease saw the play while reviewing game film on Sunday.
"Sometimes you have to laugh," he said, still chuckling and shaking his head in disbelief. "I mean, I'm just like, that is ... c'mon."
Pease said he had to rewind the film several times.
"The only thing I'd say is, 'Hey, I know what Jon was doing, he's trying to get around,' " Pease said. "I guess I'd tell Quinton to keep his eyes open a little bit."
The play is certainly embarrassing since it comes in the midst of the Gators' painful six-game losing streak. But one thing lost in all of the jokes is that Patton got the first down and helped set up a Florida touchdown.
"You know, sometimes guys get mixed up," senior offensive lineman Kyle Koehne said. "Sometimes you don't really see, you lock onto somebody and you don't really notice who you're blocking. Just two guys trying to play hard and do their job and they happened to get messed up. Hopefully that won't happen again anymore."
Those Gators are obviously not bearing the White Visor of Spurrier.
If I am a Gator fan I am not laughing at that.
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2013, 12:43:35 AM
If I am a Gator fan I am not laughing at that.
Yeah, if they were 9-2 or something or had at least won that game, it would just be a goofy, fluke thing that you could lauch at. But considering how their season has gone, it looks just like more evidence that the team is poorly coached and ill prepared.
Not being a Florida fan myself, I got a good laugh out of it.
Being a Florida State fan, I cannot stop laughing at that...If we hung 80 on them and muschamp invoked the running clock mercy rule, it would be a perfect thanksgiving weekend
I don't find it anywhere close to as funny as that fat punter gliding like a supertanker toward the punt returner.
So what is going to happen if Winston gets charged after the ACC Championship game? I have to think FSU and Ohio State will be close in the computers (even if FSU is 1 now and Ohio State 3). FSU has two mediocre to poor opponents left, while Alabama and Ohio State have better challenges. Could the human voters drop a Winston-less FSU behind Ohio State if Ohio State dominates the next two?
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2013, 12:43:35 AM
If I am a Gator fan I am not laughing at that.
Think of it as an opportunity for Texas. When Muschamp left, you probably thought you lost him for good as Brown's successor. I bet you could get him now, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 17, 2013, 02:10:01 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 17, 2013, 12:53:51 AM
Can someone give me an Idiot's Guide to the run and shoot?
Buddy Ryan used to call it the "Chuck and Duck". Pretty much summed it up.
Now with the rules about hitting the quarterback, and also the rules against blowing up receivers in the middle of the field, a lot of teams are running modified run and shoot offenses. The run and shoot was four wide and 1 running back. Now most teams are using 1 RB, and the TE position has morphed into more of a big receiver rather than the more traditional TE.
Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2013, 09:31:16 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 16, 2013, 08:00:51 PM
That 2nd half of Georgia at Auburn. Wow. Just wow.
That made me a little sick to my stomach. Could this season be any more nightmarish for Georgia?
And you posted this before Murray tore his ACL.
Eddie Briles, Art's older brother, died today. Head injuries after a fall yesterday.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2013, 08:29:22 PMNow most teams are using 1 RB, and the TE position has morphed into more of a big receiver rather than the more traditional TE.
Yeah, also known as the Ace that the Redskins and Bills started using in the mid and late 80's, and so on. Just variations of the Coryell theme.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2013, 09:15:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2013, 08:29:22 PMNow most teams are using 1 RB, and the TE position has morphed into more of a big receiver rather than the more traditional TE.
Yeah, also known as the Ace that the Redskins and Bills started using in the mid and late 80's, and so on. Just variations of the Coryell theme.
Terry Orr :punk:
Too bad he turned out to be a con and thief.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2013, 08:24:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2013, 12:43:35 AM
If I am a Gator fan I am not laughing at that.
Think of it as an opportunity for Texas. When Muschamp left, you probably thought you lost him for good as Brown's successor. I bet you could get him now, though.
Austin, Texas is a bizarre alternative universe where Will Muschamp, Greg Robinson, and Gene Chizik are geniuses and heroes.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2013, 08:22:14 PM
So what is going to happen if Winston gets charged after the ACC Championship game? I have to think FSU and Ohio State will be close in the computers (even if FSU is 1 now and Ohio State 3). FSU has two mediocre to poor opponents left, while Alabama and Ohio State have better challenges. Could the human voters drop a Winston-less FSU behind Ohio State if Ohio State dominates the next two?
FSU could still squeak by if properly aged.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2013, 09:15:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2013, 08:29:22 PMNow most teams are using 1 RB, and the TE position has morphed into more of a big receiver rather than the more traditional TE.
Yeah, also known as the Ace that the Redskins and Bills started using in the mid and late 80's, and so on. Just variations of the Coryell theme.
Didn't the usually line up the TE on the line though?
But agree--the clear trend has been to transform the TE position into something of a big wide receiver. No one raves about Jimmy Graham or Gronkowski because the blocking they provide in support of the running game.
Jeffcoat went crazy in the second Q. Three sacks out of six total for the Horns. 20-10 Texas at the half.
Gronk is actually a really good blocker.
Gronk also eats dicks
Buckets of them.
:punk: SWOOOOOOOOOOPES :punk:
(got the first TD of his career just now)
41-16. Fuck Tech.
Oh and Greg Robinson is the shit, apparently. 11 sacks tonight, only one TD on the D. Nice job.
Has Mack Brown saved his job? A win against Baylor, and Texas has at least a share of the Big 12 title with a decent shot of winning it outright. The win isn't guaranteed, but that is a lot to be playing for in the last week of the season and Brown was in the national title game 4 years ago.
Of course he has. That fool's never going anywhere. Only the NCAA can get rid of him.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 29, 2013, 10:57:01 AM
Of course he has. That fool's never going anywhere. Only the NCAA can get rid of him.
There is another man they said that about:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=33c66u8&s=4
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 23, 2013, 06:49:14 PM
Looks like UTSA just beat North Texas, giving them their 6th win and bowl eligibility. :)
OK, Marshall beat ECU to win the Conference USA East. If Rice loses to Tulane and UTSA and North Texas win their games, who wins the tie-breaker for the Conference USA West title? All 4 teams would be 6-2 in conference. UTSA would be 7-5 overall; the others would be 8-4, but I don't know what Conference USA uses as tiebreakers.
I havent been this meh about a Civil War in a long time.
I'm not sure what happened to the Ducks in Tucson the other week. Weird things always happen when the Ducks go down there, so I wasn't shocked by the loss. I was surprised how badly they got their asses kicked though. The Ducks haven't lost a game like that in soemthing like 6 years. They beat the teams they are supposed to beat*, and have trouble against bigger better teams. I don't know if they lose that game against Arizona with Chip Kelly as HC, but I do know that they didn't ever do it when he was here. I don't want to join teh absurd dogpile on Helfrich, but sometimes (maybe more than sometimes) there is a reason a guy is a long time assistant coach. Some guys are very good at scheming and game planning but don't have what it takes to run a program.
I have been a Ducks fan since the mid '80s when they were terrible, so I'm not too upset about a 2 loss Alamo/Holiday Bowl season, but the amount of q.q'ign around the state is insane. The only reason we weren't the laughingstock of the Pac-10 was that the team 40 miles away was even worse. I still remember how excited I was when the Ducks went to the Independence Bowl in 1989. So exciting. Now a non-BCS game is uninteresting to most people; to be fair it is a bit uninteresting to me, but that might just be due to my diminishing interest in NCAA football in general.
The Beavers are just not very good so Oregon should still win this game; and they shoudl win it rather handily. You never know though with 18-20 year old kids and a very unproven head coach.
Oh my god both uniformsa re horribel this week.
So with all the Iron Bowl hype, this was shared with me, and in a weird way, I kinda like it. LOL I am not proud of this fact, but what the hell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG6zYRTY5fw
Quote from: dps on November 29, 2013, 03:58:45 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 23, 2013, 06:49:14 PM
Looks like UTSA just beat North Texas, giving them their 6th win and bowl eligibility. :)
OK, Marshall beat ECU to win the Conference USA East. If Rice loses to Tulane and UTSA and North Texas win their games, who wins the tie-breaker for the Conference USA West title? All 4 teams would be 6-2 in conference. UTSA would be 7-5 overall; the others would be 8-4, but I don't know what Conference USA uses as tiebreakers.
Uhhhhhh. Well shit I don't know. UTSA lost to Rice head to head, so they'd lose that tiebreaker there, I assume. They did beat UNT and Tulane, so I guess they'd be second in their division.
E: well this says they'd win the west with a W over latech and a rice loss. http://blog.mysanantonio.com/utsa/2013/11/wild-wild-c-usa-west-utsa-can-win-but-it-needs-help-from-tulane/
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2013, 10:54:30 AM
Has Mack Brown saved his job? A win against Baylor, and Texas has at least a share of the Big 12 title with a decent shot of winning it outright. The win isn't guaranteed, but that is a lot to be playing for in the last week of the season and Brown was in the national title game 4 years ago.
Not yet. A four or five loss season with Texas' easy schedule is not cutting it. He beats Baylor and shares the title? Well yeah.
Quote from: sbr on November 29, 2013, 06:31:34 PM
I havent been this meh about a Civil War in a long time.
I'm not sure what happened to the Ducks in Tucson the other week. Weird things always happen when the Ducks go down there, so I wasn't shocked by the loss. I was surprised how badly they got their asses kicked though. The Ducks haven't lost a game like that in soemthing like 6 years. They beat the teams they are supposed to beat*, and have trouble against bigger better teams. I don't know if they lose that game against Arizona with Chip Kelly as HC, but I do know that they didn't ever do it when he was here. I don't want to join teh absurd dogpile on Helfrich, but sometimes (maybe more than sometimes) there is a reason a guy is a long time assistant coach. Some guys are very good at scheming and game planning but don't have what it takes to run a program.
I have been a Ducks fan since the mid '80s when they were terrible, so I'm not too upset about a 2 loss Alamo/Holiday Bowl season, but the amount of q.q'ign around the state is insane. The only reason we weren't the laughingstock of the Pac-10 was that the team 40 miles away was even worse. I still remember how excited I was when the Ducks went to the Independence Bowl in 1989. So exciting. Now a non-BCS game is uninteresting to most people; to be fair it is a bit uninteresting to me, but that might just be due to my diminishing interest in NCAA football in general.
The Beavers are just not very good so Oregon should still win this game; and they shoudl win it rather handily. You never know though with 18-20 year old kids and a very unproven head coach.
Obviously there was a lot of talk during the game about whether this means that Oregon is no longer an elite program.
I am not going to comment on whether that is true or not, except to note that in college football, even moreso than basketball, it is nearly impossible to maintain a program at the level of NC contender year after year. I don't see it as a Helfrich failing - I just see it as he probably is not the coach that Kelly is and was, but why would anyone expect him to be?
Kelly was something incredibly special, a very rare find. I hated him, of course, as any real American should, but as far as his ability to create and run a college football program, he was probably in the top 1% of all coaches.
I look at Oregon now and think that Helfrich is probably a pretty damn good coach, but what are the odds that he is a 1% coach? Almost incredibly thin, especially given his background. I think it was a mistake for Oregon to hire from within in this case. They were an established elite program, and should have tried to go out and get an established elite coach.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 28, 2013, 11:21:42 PM
:punk: SWOOOOOOOOOOPES :punk:
(got the first TD of his career just now)
41-16. Fuck Tech.
I am glad we can laugh at this now:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.ftw.usatoday.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2F824586445-1.gif&hash=5acd393bda973b92e69e0e0e1d976b5c079bff3d)
Those two Texas players who just randomly run right by him allowing him to run was bizarre.
Quote from: Berkut on November 29, 2013, 10:40:54 PM
Obviously there was a lot of talk during the game about whether this means that Oregon is no longer an elite program.
I am not going to comment on whether that is true or not, except to note that in college football, even moreso than basketball, it is nearly impossible to maintain a program at the level of NC contender year after year. I don't see it as a Helfrich failing - I just see it as he probably is not the coach that Kelly is and was, but why would anyone expect him to be?
Kelly was something incredibly special, a very rare find. I hated him, of course, as any real American should, but as far as his ability to create and run a college football program, he was probably in the top 1% of all coaches.
I look at Oregon now and think that Helfrich is probably a pretty damn good coach, but what are the odds that he is a 1% coach? Almost incredibly thin, especially given his background. I think it was a mistake for Oregon to hire from within in this case. They were an established elite program, and should have tried to go out and get an established elite coach.
The problem with hiring from outside is that Oregon runs a relatively unique system and has current personnel (and a fanbase for that matter) geared toward that system. I can't think of a single established "elite" coach that you could bring in and keep the offense. Some guys that come to mind that run similar (but in many case different offenses) are Chad Morris, Leach, Rodriguez, Malzahn, and Briles. None of those guys are really west coast guys and that would raise recruiting red flags--I wouldn't count any as sure things / elite.
Even if Oregon pulled off the incredible and got a more traditional elite coach like say Nick Saban, I think the team would slip for several years as it converts to a more traditional style of play. Transitions are tough--even Nick Saban was mediocre and lost to Louisiana–Monroe when he took over at Alabama.
Sometimes promoting from within works--see Chris Petersen--and you avoid the pains of transition. In the end, in college football the coach is the driver of everything, and if you are replacing someone who is really special, your program will probably slip no matter which course you take.
There are no sure things when transitioning an elite program. The head coach is so important that the odds are always slim that you are going to get someone else that is as good as the last guy.
As far as Oregon being unique, that is just bullshit. They run a spread, high tempo offense. There are a ton of other coaches doing the same thing. They are not that unusual, except in that they have done it incredibly well.
I look at Oregon replacing Kelly like Arizona replacing Olson (absent the tranistion mess off course). There was plenty of pressure at Arizona to bring in someone from the Oloson coaching tree, and there are plenty of guys out there who fit that bill. But the way I see it, for any given coach, you are rolling some dice to see what you get - you can never REALLY know.
And the odds that someone you promote from within having that special whatever that separates the good coaches from the truly great coaches are slim. Kelly was a incredible break for Oregon. Thinking you are going to have the lightning hit twice is foolish.
And moreover, the situation was not the same - when they promoted Kelly Oregon was a very good program trying to become elite. They weren't going to attract an already established top tier head coach, and given that, there was no pressing reason to roll the dice on someone unfamiliar with the program when there was a solid assistant who was a very good high potential up and coming assistant - and he turned out to be outstanding. Now that is NOT the case - Oregon is no longer a pretty good program trying to become elite, they were an elite program trying to stay elite. They should have gone out and gotten themselves an established, high profile, proven commodity. With the Nike money and facilities that Oregon has, they could have done so, I would think.
Trying to imagine that Helfrich would just ve Kelly 2.0 was a pipe dream. Helfrich may very well be a pretty damn good coach, but Oregon needs an outstanding coach to remain at the level they've established. And that is very, very hard to do.
You know, given his sudden in-depth interest in college football, I truly believe that AR is the poster formerly known as D4H.
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2013, 01:55:17 AM
You know, given his sudden in-depth interest in college football, I truly believe that AR is the poster formerly known as D4H.
Jokes over son.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2013, 01:51:39 AM
There are no sure things when transitioning an elite program. The head coach is so important that the odds are always slim that you are going to get someone else that is as good as the last guy.
As far as Oregon being unique, that is just bullshit. They run a spread, high tempo offense. There are a ton of other coaches doing the same thing. They are not that unusual, except in that they have done it incredibly well.
I look at Oregon replacing Kelly like Arizona replacing Olson (absent the tranistion mess off course). There was plenty of pressure at Arizona to bring in someone from the Oloson coaching tree, and there are plenty of guys out there who fit that bill. But the way I see it, for any given coach, you are rolling some dice to see what you get - you can never REALLY know.
And the odds that someone you promote from within having that special whatever that separates the good coaches from the truly great coaches are slim. Kelly was a incredible break for Oregon. Thinking you are going to have the lightning hit twice is foolish.
And moreover, the situation was not the same - when they promoted Kelly Oregon was a very good program trying to become elite. They weren't going to attract an already established top tier head coach, and given that, there was no pressing reason to roll the dice on someone unfamiliar with the program when there was a solid assistant who was a very good high potential up and coming assistant - and he turned out to be outstanding. Now that is NOT the case - Oregon is no longer a pretty good program trying to become elite, they were an elite program trying to stay elite. They should have gone out and gotten themselves an established, high profile, proven commodity. With the Nike money and facilities that Oregon has, they could have done so, I would think.
Trying to imagine that Helfrich would just ve Kelly 2.0 was a pipe dream. Helfrich may very well be a pretty damn good coach, but Oregon needs an outstanding coach to remain at the level they've established. And that is very, very hard to do.
I named 5 sort of elite coaches running up tempo spread offenses...I don't think any were a clear answer for Oregon's situation. I'd be interested in a list of names you think are a better choice.
With these requirements:
West Coast recruiting ties
Up tempo spread offense
Significant head coaching success
The only slam dunk I see is Chris Petersen, and I assume Oregon couldn't get him.
Also, do you really qualify as an elite program before you've won a national title?
I didn't mean to imply that Oregon shouldn't have hired Helfrich. He was the best hire at the time, though I had the same reservations then and I don't think they are unfounded concerns. The football landscape is littered with guys who could coordinate the hell out of a game but couldn't cut it as the head guy; see: Norv Turner, Charlie Wiess, Norm Chow off the top of my head; there are many, many others. I was actually very surprised He;frich didn't get hired by someone else (Cal) before Kelly left. He was a hot commodity and Oregon was able to get him.
I was addressing what is "wrong" with Oregon football now. We will obviously need to see another couple seasons, unless something disastrous happens in the next 12 months (especially on the recruiting front) to decide if Helfrich is "the guy" here, or anywhere. It will be very interesting to see how they respond to playing in the Alamo or Holiday Bowl, it is so far away from where everyone thought they would be that it is one of those games where I wouldn't be shocked to see them lose. Just a few weeks ago DeAnthony Thomas was saying how uninteresting going back to the Rose Bowl would be. How about San Diego or San Antonio in December instead of January? It will be a real trick to get these 18-21 year old kids focused on a game they never thought they would have to play.
Oregon has the facilities, commitment to the program from school admin and boosters, and plenty of money to continue to be very good with the right guy leading the way. I hope it is Mark Helfrich, but I also know that if the powers-that-be decide he is not they will get rid of him and bring in someone else who they think can be.
I personally don't think playing in a BCS Bowl on a yearly basis is where Oregon is as a program right now, no matter how much the newer "fans" feel. They just do not have the recruiting base in state to maintain that. They have made great recruiting inroads in California and Texas over the last few years, and occasionally get the stud 5-star blue chipper (Jonathon Stewart, Haloti Ngata, DeAnthony Thomas) but they are still not able (or want) to get that level of talent consistently and that is why they lose a game each year even before the bowl season.
As for AR's "elite" comment, I don't have much interest in semantics debates but who would be considered "elite" now by that definition? Is FSU "elite" since they won a NC 15 years ago then had 11 out of 14 mediocre to good seasons between now and then? Ohio State? They haven't lost a game in 2 years but play a weak schedule and were average-to-good before Meyer showed up. Auburn the one-hit-wonder? Who else has won a NC, is very good this year and has been for multiple years in a row?
Oregon has played in 4 straight BCS games, including one NC game. The last 2 they won very convincingly. Only 3 other teams have done that: early 2000's Miami, mid-decade USC and late-decade Ohio State. Those team all won at least one title in those runs, so the Ducks don't compare there, but they also don't come even close in NFL talent during those streaks. Miami had 15 first round picks in 2001, Oregon has had 8 players drafted in ANY round in the last 3. Oregon has finished the last 4 seasons ranked: 11, 3, 4, 2. They have had 5-6 straight top 20 recruiting classes. They may not meet some people's random definition of "elite", but they have been one of the top 5-6 programs over the last few years and even if that isn't "elite" I will take it. It has been a very fun ride, and I hope it is not over.
Well, The Game has suddenly become very interesting. 35-35 with 5 minutes to go. I had expected complete OSU dominance, because Michigan hasn't had an offense in weeks. Suddenly, this. 500 yards against this OSU defense? Didn't see that coming.
Quote from: sbr on November 30, 2013, 12:09:10 PM
Oregon has played in 4 straight BCS games, including one NC game. The last 2 they won very convincingly. Only 3 other teams have done that: early 2000's Miami, mid-decade USC and late-decade Ohio State. Those team all won at least one title in those runs, so the Ducks don't compare there, but they also don't come even close in NFL talent during those streaks. Miami had 15 first round picks in 2001, Oregon has had 8 players drafted in ANY round in the last 3. Oregon has finished the last 4 seasons ranked: 11, 3, 4, 2. They have had 5-6 straight top 20 recruiting classes. They may not meet some people's random definition of "elite", but they have been one of the top 5-6 programs over the last few years and even if that isn't "elite" I will take it. It has been a very fun ride, and I hope it is not over.
I hate Oregon with a burning passion, as they represent everything that is wrong about college athletics, but I can't imagine what lengths you would need to twist yourself into to come up with a definition of "elite" that would not include them over the last 5-6 years.
They haven't won the Big One, but that is mostly because they play in a brutal conference where going undefeated is nearly impossible, IMO.
And Ohio State wins, 42-41, on Michigan's failed 2-point conversion at the end of the game. Great game, though. My pre-game prediction was OSU 39-6.
Quote from: grumbler on November 30, 2013, 03:39:59 PM
And Ohio State wins, 42-41, on Michigan's failed 2-point conversion at the end of the game. Great game, though. My pre-game prediction was OSU 39-6.
I watched from right when Michigan tied it at 35 until the end and I didn't get that decision, Michigan's offense had been rolling all day. Why not try your hand at overtime? I mean this was not the 1984 Orange Bowl, honor did not demand Hoke go for the lead there.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2013, 04:32:48 PM
I watched from right when Michigan tied it at 35 until the end and I didn't get that decision, Michigan's offense had been rolling all day. Why not try your hand at overtime? I mean this was not the 1984 Orange Bowl, honor did not demand Hoke go for the lead there.
Michigan was injured, and didn't have their ace kicker (and the backup was wobbly all day). Carlos Hyde was running rampant, and Michigan's backup LBs (two starters out) couldn't stop him. The 2-point conversion was a far better gamble than OT. That was absolutely the right call. Not the right play call (a good OC would have had a second play ready when OSU called the timeout after seeing Michigan's formation lined up for the conversion), and Michigan's QB had plenty of time to check down his receivers when he saw his go-to guy covered, but that's been his weakness all year, and he threw to the primary receiver even though he was double-teamed, exactly as OSU wanted.
Great call by the head coach, poor call by the OC.
Can't really disagree on the call to go for the win--on the road, different story--but should've kept it on the ground, like some sort of option pitch or something. Three things can happen when you throw the ball, and two of them are bad.
Fucking Ohio State. Obi Hoke Kenobi, you were our only hope. Now it falls upon the Spartoons.
Auburn can win this game if they stay committed to grinding it out on the ground. And stop coughing it up.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2013, 05:44:13 PM
Auburn can win this game if they stay committed to grinding it out on the ground. And stop coughing it up.
History suggests Auburn wins and then Florida State and Ohio State both lose in their title games and Alabama wins the National Title anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2013, 05:42:12 PM
Can't really disagree on the call to go for the win--on the road, different story--but should've kept it on the ground, like some sort of option pitch or something. Three things can happen when you throw the ball, and two of them are bad.
Fucking Ohio State. Obi Hoke Kenobi, you were our only hope. Now it falls upon the Spartoons.
Michigan had run the ball with little success in the game. What they should have done was to get both their big receivers in the game (neither was there) rather than relying on a slot munchkin who was great with YAC, but wasn't a jump-ball type.
Gardner's hit was re-injured in the game, or he could have walked it in up the middle. OSU played great defense on that play, and they did so because Meyer finally outcoached Hoke on a play.
MSU actually has a chance in their game. They match up well defensively to what OSU does offensively. I'm not sure their offense is capable of outplaying OSU's defense, though.
Welp. Barring a Rosenfelsesque meltdown, UTSA is going to beat LATech (30-10 with 5ish left), but it doesn't appear that Tulane is going to get the w over rice. Probably no bowl for them either.
Still, 7-5 is a solid season for them.
This Arizona ASU game should be interesting tonight. I could see it going any which way - Arizona could be coming off a letdown from the Oregon upset and get rolled by ASU, ASU could be not nearly as good as they think and Arizona is peaking at the right time (see game against Oregon) and roll ASU, or it could be a tough matchup that comes down to a score either way.
I can never predict this rivalry game....
Wyoming ends up 5-6 after a 4-2 start. The defense collapsed, the offense refused to play every other game, and Pistol Pete was left on the sidelines shooting blanks.
Well, another year to go, Wyoming. As always.
Quote from: PDH on November 30, 2013, 06:46:53 PM
Wyoming ends up 5-6 after a 4-2 start. The defense collapsed, the offense refused to play every other game, and Pistol Pete was left on the sidelines shooting blanks.
Well, another year to go, Wyoming. As always.
I wonder what loss that was so bad you are blanking it out. Wyoming, of course, plays 12 games, like everyone else, and was 5-7.
Lulz. Sometimes you should just go into overtime.
GODDAMN
Best ending of a game I've ever seen.
I so need SB Nation to make a gif of that crying Alabama fan, macht schnell.
Lusti just passed out.
I laughed through that entire last play.
LOL never seen a FG return for TD to end a game before.
Well I eagerly await everybody ahead of Bama to lose.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 30, 2013, 07:35:01 PM
Lusti just passed out.
Forecast calls for a 100% chance of post-Waffle House sex tonight.
Quote from: grumbler on November 30, 2013, 07:12:02 PM
Quote from: PDH on November 30, 2013, 06:46:53 PM
Wyoming ends up 5-6 after a 4-2 start. The defense collapsed, the offense refused to play every other game, and Pistol Pete was left on the sidelines shooting blanks.
Well, another year to go, Wyoming. As always.
I wonder what loss that was so bad you are blanking it out. Wyoming, of course, plays 12 games, like everyone else, and was 5-7.
I refuse to admit Wyoming lost to CSU. It never happened.
Go UCLA!
*passes out*
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 30, 2013, 07:35:01 PM
Lusti just passed out.
Almost did, I did not breath much during those last few minutes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 30, 2013, 07:52:35 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 30, 2013, 07:35:01 PM
Lusti just passed out.
Forecast calls for a 100% chance of post-Waffle House sex tonight.
Does Sonics count? Cheesecake bites. :yummy:
WDE! :showoff:
Well, Arizona is certainly looking like they are not much interested so far. Denker looks like crap so far.
Yep looking ugly for Cats.
Quote from: sbr on November 30, 2013, 12:09:10 PM
As for AR's "elite" comment, I don't have much interest in semantics debates but who would be considered "elite" now by that definition? Is FSU "elite" since they won a NC 15 years ago then had 11 out of 14 mediocre to good seasons between now and then? Ohio State? They haven't lost a game in 2 years but play a weak schedule and were average-to-good before Meyer showed up. Auburn the one-hit-wonder? Who else has won a NC, is very good this year and has been for multiple years in a row?
Oregon has played in 4 straight BCS games, including one NC game. The last 2 they won very convincingly. Only 3 other teams have done that: early 2000's Miami, mid-decade USC and late-decade Ohio State. Those team all won at least one title in those runs, so the Ducks don't compare there, but they also don't come even close in NFL talent during those streaks. Miami had 15 first round picks in 2001, Oregon has had 8 players drafted in ANY round in the last 3. Oregon has finished the last 4 seasons ranked: 11, 3, 4, 2. They have had 5-6 straight top 20 recruiting classes. They may not meet some people's random definition of "elite", but they have been one of the top 5-6 programs over the last few years and even if that isn't "elite" I will take it. It has been a very fun ride, and I hope it is not over.
If you take the total population of programs, I think it is fair to say that the bottom third are poor, the middle third are average, and the top third are good. Hence about 33% are good.
If elite is to have meaning, I think that you can't define more than ~10% of programs as elite. Otherwise, you will approach considering half the good programs as elite--that strikes me as a very watered down definition of elite.
The next question is the base number of programs to use. I'd say ~75 is about right: the major conference teams (including the American) and ND. So lets say 7-8 elite teams exist.
USC, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Ohio State.
Those 7 teams. I haven't named programs like Auburn, FSU, Miami, Nebraska, Texas A&M, UCLA, Michigan, Notre Dame...yeah if you look at the Chip Kelly era, the results of the team have been top 6-7, but the elite program mention that started this was in the context of a coaching search. I don't think that incredible success by the preceding coach, especially with the NCAA poking around, makes a destination a premier one.
There is a reason Nick Saban left Michigan State for LSU, and the Dolphins for Alabama, even though those programs didn't have the best results before he got there. LSU and Alabama had shown over years that they have the recruiting base, fan support, and resources to consistently compete for national titles with the right coaching. If it was just about the past 5-6 years and on the field success, I think Boise State would have a case they are "elite", but I seriously doubt they are going to be in the running to pull an NFL coach to their school.
SO you arent basing this on recent history just the last 20-30 years. Ok in that case Oregon is not elite.
Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2013, 03:31:11 PM
They haven't won the Big One, but that is mostly because they play in a brutal conference where going undefeated is nearly impossible, IMO.
You have had one to many helpings of the PAC 12 Kool Aid, imo. Lets look at quality OOC competition for the Oregon Ducks post 2005 (at least 5 losses the preceding 3 years):
2005: Oklahoma, loss.
2006: Oklahoma, win (with a major asterisk), BYU, loss
2007: Michigan, win, South Florida win
2008: Boise State, loss, Oklahoma State, win
2009: Boise State, loss, Utah, win, Ohio State, loss
2010: Auburn, loss
2011: LSU, loss, Wisconsin, win
2012: Kansas State, win
So their record during this stretch is 7-6 against quality competition. We are considering the teams like South Florida to be quality wins, and giving you that egregious game against Oklahoma. Every season featured an out of conference loss except for 2007 (when the team lost 4 games, drew a crappy bowl opponent (USF), and beat the Michigan team that got Lloyd Carr fired), and 2012 (when they got soft and scheduled the OOC murderers row of Arkansas State, Fresno State, and Tennessee Tech, before drawing Kansas State in a bowl).
Quote from: alfred russel on November 30, 2013, 10:55:26 PM
If it was just about the past 5-6 years and on the field success, I think Boise State would have a case they are "elite", but I seriously doubt they are going to be in the running to pull an NFL coach to their school.
I don't think any college can pull an established, successful NFL coach to their school. The schools that have gotten NFL head coaches have gotten what were basically college coaches who were giving the NFL a try and deciding they preferred college football, or NFL rejects/failures.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 30, 2013, 07:41:41 PM
I laughed through that entire last play.
Same here. The look on Coach Satan's face was priceless.
Also WVU needs to swallow that ridiculous buyout and find a new head coach :bleeding:
I won money betting on Michigan to beat the spread tonight. Silly sportsbook. Everyone knows OSU plays like donkeys in that game and the Wolverines step it up. 17 points my ass.
So that Iron Bowl play....
Is that the best final play in the history of college football?
Off the top of my head, the three obvious competing plays:
Kordell Stewart's hail mary against Michigan
Doug Flutie's hail mary against Miami
The Stanford band play
I tend to give this play the edge over those. This game was a play in to the conference championship, was a matchup of top 5 teams, and probably doomed a 2 time champion's repeat bid. The Stanford band play obviously had a bit more craziness with the band and all, but ultimately was not a valid play to begin with (if referees are going to ignore guys knees being down and forward laterals on kickoff returns, I suspect more of them will go back).
Listen to the Auburn call here:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/listen-amazing-auburn-radio-call-iron-bowl-win-024938767--ncaaf.html
And the less happy Alabama call here:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/11/30/5161264/auburn-radio-call-internet-implosion-after-auburn-alabama-110-yard
Yeah, best final play I've personally seen in real time for sure.
I saw the Flutie and Stewart plays live. I wasn't watching tonight and still haven't seen the FG return play.
I put this at #1. First of all, it really is one of a kind. Teams throw hail Maries every week. Second of all, you had all the drama leading up to the play: Bama's missed FG, Auburn's triple option TD pass, the replay on the game clock. The icing is the #1 team in the country going down.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2013, 01:12:54 AM
I put this at #1. First of all, it really is one of a kind. Teams throw hail Maries every week. Second of all, you had all the drama leading up to the play: Bama's missed FG, Auburn's triple option TD pass, the replay on the game clock. The icing is the #1 team in the country going down.
Agree. It was a one-of-a-kind ending to a match that was an instant classic. I don't see how you top that.
Definitely one of the most important games of all time in NCAA history, and Auburn's season--considering how they were last year, how they've won the last two weeks, and in derailing the best chance to see an NC three-peat--has been nothing short of amazing.
It was no Appalachian State versus #3 Michigan, though. :ph34r:
:unsure:
CB and I went to the MSU-Minn game yesterday. It was just about a perfect day for Nov 30 in East Lansing; sunny and not too windy. Since it was senior day they said goodbye to all the seniors, including those on the marching band and dance squad. Apparently some of the marching band had a red-shirt year since they had been on the squad for five years.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 01, 2013, 09:17:43 AM
Definitely one of the most important games of all time in NCAA history, and Auburn's season--considering how they were last year, how they've won the last two weeks, and in derailing the best chance to see an NC three-peat--has been nothing short of amazing.
It was no Appalachian State versus #3 Michigan, though. :ph34r:
:unsure:
Appalachian State has only played Michigan once, and Michigan wasn't a #3 team when they played.
Unless you are talking about next year. Michigan almost certainly won't be ranked #3 then, either. Though they deserve to lose that game just for scheduling it (Dave Brandon, rot in hell!). :yuk:
My bad, they were ranked #5 in 2007 at the time of TEH GREATEST UPSET IN NCAA HISTORY.
But yesterday was a far more important game. Not the '92 SEC Championship, not even BC-Miami '84 wasn't as important, despite the presence of Bernie Joseph Kosar, Jr.
For meaning and emotion and just damn good timing, the Auburn-Alabama finish has to be the best for most.
For me, personally, The Play against Stanford is the all time best. The team I grew up following, the laterals (at least one controversial), the extra Stanford players on the field (coming off the bench meant that had the play ended the officials would have had to award Cal the TD anyway), and the BAND in the way at the end make it the best. Spiking the trombone player capped off a great play.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 30, 2013, 11:14:54 PM
... and beat the Michigan team that got Lloyd Carr fired...
When you say this kind of obviously false crap, you kinda ruin the effect of trying to sound like you know what you are talking about. Carr retired under his own terms (it's hard to remember, considering his later actions, that he was the guy who picked rich Rodriguez to replace him) and remained a member of the athletic department staff for another four years. The year he "was fired" according you you he was awarded the Bobby Dodd Coach of the Year Award. Admittedly, that was a retirement gift and certainly not awarded for his accomplishments that year (his team got curbstomped by Oregon and Wisconsin that year), but they don't award that to guys who just got fired.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 30, 2013, 11:14:54 PM
2006: Oklahoma, win (with a major asterisk)
Was this the one where the ref was digging around in the pile looking for the ball and then acted like Oregon had it and awarded it to the Ducks while a Sooner was standing behind him holding the ball?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 01, 2013, 12:24:56 PM
My bad, they were ranked #5 in 2007 at the time of TEH GREATEST UPSET IN NCAA HISTORY.
But yesterday was a far more important game. Not the '92 SEC Championship, not even BC-Miami '84 wasn't as important, despite the presence of Bernie Joseph Kosar, Jr.
:lol: ASU-UM was TEH GREATEST UPSET IN NCAA
HISTORY THAT AFTERNOON. BC-Miami was not am important game, given that the loss was Miami's fourth of five they would lose that year. It was a great finish to a great game, but certainly isn't second or even third in terms of dramatic finishes to important games. Yesterday was probably #1, depending on what comes out of it (i.e. unless Auburn stumbles against Missouri and the Crimson Tide gets back into the title game).
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 01, 2013, 02:48:19 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 30, 2013, 11:14:54 PM
2006: Oklahoma, win (with a major asterisk)
Was this the one where the ref was digging around in the pile looking for the ball and then acted like Oregon had it and awarded it to the Ducks while a Sooner was standing behind him holding the ball?
Yep. :blush:
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2013, 03:02:09 PM
BC-Miami was not am important game, given that the loss was Miami's fourth of five they would lose that year. It was a great finish to a great game, but certainly isn't second or even third in terms of dramatic finishes to important games.
Bernie Joseph Kosar Jr was on the field. That made it important enough.
And besides, it sealed the Heisman for the Magic Flutie.
Quote from: sbr on December 01, 2013, 03:12:11 PM
Yep. :blush:
Now, don't get me wrong. It's great that Oklahoma got hosed like that, but I just can't figure out how they came to the conclusion that Oregon had the ball when the thing wasn't in the pile they were looking at to begin with.
Quote from: sbr on December 01, 2013, 03:12:11 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 01, 2013, 02:48:19 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 30, 2013, 11:14:54 PM
2006: Oklahoma, win (with a major asterisk)
Was this the one where the ref was digging around in the pile looking for the ball and then acted like Oregon had it and awarded it to the Ducks while a Sooner was standing behind him holding the ball?
Yep. :blush:
That was hilarious and right after the refs gave Texas Tech about two feet on a fourth down spot late the previous season. The Okies were sure the refs had some sort of anti-Sooner conspiracy going on :lol:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 01, 2013, 04:04:07 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 01, 2013, 03:12:11 PM
Yep. :blush:
Now, don't get me wrong. It's great that Oklahoma got hosed like that, but I just can't figure out how they came to the conclusion that Oregon had the ball when the thing wasn't in the pile they were looking at to begin with.
That's a tough call to make, but the point isn't who ended up with the ball after the scrum was over, but rather who had possession when the whistle was blown. There can't be a change of possession after the whistle because a Sooner player took control of the ball at that point. Generally, though, you are right that in football, like life possession is nine-tenths of the law. Still, I can see the refs deciding that Oregon had possession when the whistle blew.
More mysterious are calls like the USC phantom touchdown, when Charles White had clearly, on film, lost the ball on the two-and-a-half yard line, and a Michigan player immediately fell on it. White didn't have the ball, but got the TD call anyway, and there was no review back then.
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2013, 05:08:32 PM
That's a tough call to make, but the point isn't who ended up with the ball after the scrum was over, but rather who had possession when the whistle was blown. There can't be a change of possession after the whistle because a Sooner player took control of the ball at that point. Generally, though, you are right that in football, like life possession is nine-tenths of the law. Still, I can see the refs deciding that Oregon had possession when the whistle blew.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dSIykYoM260
Watch 23 white. When the whistle blows, you can see where the ball is because he grabs it. Look at the Umpire digging in the pile (where there is no football), come out, and award possession to Oregon. In the other angles, you can see it was underneath an OU player, but loose, before 23 picked it up (also that it didn't go 10 yards). They even reviewed that and gave it to Oregon after incorrectly concluding that an OU player touched it first, and.......Oregon had it???? Except Oregon didn't have it, and Oregon touched it first. Hilariously bad call.
E: "Conclusive video evidence" :lol: Suck it, Stoops.
Wow. You can kinda make the case that #15 Ducks had possession for a bit and was down by contact before it squirted out (though I wouldn't) but Helen Keller would have made the right call on Ducks touching before 10 yards.
OU lost, so it worked out nicely.
I was going to watch that replay again, but it gives me nightmares.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 01, 2013, 05:14:22 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dSIykYoM260
Watch 23 white. When the whistle blows, you can see where the ball is because he grabs it. Look at the Umpire digging in the pile (where there is no football), come out, and award possession to Oregon. In the other angles, you can see it was underneath an OU player, but loose, before 23 picked it up (also that it didn't go 10 yards). They even reviewed that and gave it to Oregon after incorrectly concluding that an OU player touched it first, and.......Oregon had it???? Except Oregon didn't have it, and Oregon touched it first. Hilariously bad call.
E: "Conclusive video evidence" :lol: Suck it, Stoops.
That's a lot clearer than I remembered seeing. A badly blown call on the 10 yards thing, and an inexcusably bad job by the replay official on both the 10 yards and the possession.
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2013, 06:55:01 PM
That's a lot clearer than I remembered seeing. A badly blown call on the 10 yards thing, and an inexcusably bad job by the replay official on both the 10 yards and the possession.
You know, there was a Youtube comment (I know I know) under this video saying that this happened in the first year the Pac 10 had instant replay, and so a much more limited number of camera angles were available to the replay official. I don't know if that's true or not, but it might explain how they missed the, to us, blatantly obvious 10 yard call.
I am not really surprised at the 10 yard call being missed.
In realtime, this happens incredibly fast, and judging where exactly the ball is when it is in flight is incredibly hard. There are a LOT of things happening in your field of view, all within a split second.
This is MUCH harder than judging, for example, if the ball crossed the goal line in possession.
How they miss it in replay I am not sure...
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2013, 02:47:58 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 30, 2013, 11:14:54 PM
... and beat the Michigan team that got Lloyd Carr fired...
When you say this kind of obviously false crap, you kinda ruin the effect of trying to sound like you know what you are talking about. Carr retired under his own terms (it's hard to remember, considering his later actions, that he was the guy who picked rich Rodriguez to replace him) and remained a member of the athletic department staff for another four years. The year he "was fired" according you you he was awarded the Bobby Dodd Coach of the Year Award. Admittedly, that was a retirement gift and certainly not awarded for his accomplishments that year (his team got curbstomped by Oregon and Wisconsin that year), but they don't award that to guys who just got fired.
What is this? You pick two losses to highlight from Carr's last season and you pick Oregon and Wisconsin? Why not mention Ohio State, and oh yeah, APPALACHIAN STATE.
Whether he really left on his own terms is debatable. He was under intense pressure from alumni and fans and considering what they were supposed to do, his last year can best be described as an abortion. His record against Ohio State was pathetic once Tressel got there. He wasn't so old. I think he was pushed out, and I'm hardly alone in thinking that.
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2013, 07:18:11 PM
I am not really surprised at the 10 yard call being missed.
In realtime, this happens incredibly fast, and judging where exactly the ball is when it is in flight is incredibly hard. There are a LOT of things happening in your field of view, all within a split second.
This is MUCH harder than judging, for example, if the ball crossed the goal line in possession.
How they miss it in replay I am not sure...
I'm not sure either, but boy there seems to be a trend of calls going the Pac 10/12s way when there are interconference games officiated by Pac 10 officials.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2013, 08:21:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2013, 07:18:11 PM
I am not really surprised at the 10 yard call being missed.
In realtime, this happens incredibly fast, and judging where exactly the ball is when it is in flight is incredibly hard. There are a LOT of things happening in your field of view, all within a split second.
This is MUCH harder than judging, for example, if the ball crossed the goal line in possession.
How they miss it in replay I am not sure...
I'm not sure either, but boy there seems to be a trend of calls going the Pac 10/12s way when there are interconference games officiated by Pac 10 officials.
Meh, that is just plain ignorant. Not unexpected, but ignorant. And I mean that in a strictly non-emotive sense, you really have no clue how officiating assignments work, how they are evaluated, and how they are rewarded.
There is no upside for a conference official from any conference playing favorites, and an incredible amount of downside.
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2013, 09:40:04 PM
Meh, that is just plain ignorant. Not unexpected, but ignorant. And I mean that in a strictly non-emotive sense, you really have no clue how officiating assignments work, how they are evaluated, and how they are rewarded.
There is no upside for a conference official from any conference playing favorites, and an incredible amount of downside.
The Pac whatever is effectively a multi million dollar business, as is the Big 12. A contest that will have material financial impacts is waged between the two businesses, and needs to be officiated. The officiating involves hundreds of highly subjective incidents occurring in very short time periods. You are telling me that all the officials being employed by one of the parties, and evaluated by the same party, doesn't in any way bias the officiating?
Since I assume you say "no", can we apply this to other avenues of business? It would be great society could save on court costs, and highly subjective disputes between say Apple and Microsoft could be resolved by employees of one of the parties (determined by coin toss) carefully weighing the evidence and making a decision.
Pac-xx officials have been terrible for a long time. Incompetence is a much easier explanation than corruption.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2013, 09:48:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2013, 09:40:04 PM
Meh, that is just plain ignorant. Not unexpected, but ignorant. And I mean that in a strictly non-emotive sense, you really have no clue how officiating assignments work, how they are evaluated, and how they are rewarded.
There is no upside for a conference official from any conference playing favorites, and an incredible amount of downside.
The Pac whatever is effectively a multi million dollar business, as is the Big 12. A contest that will have material financial impacts is waged between the two businesses, and needs to be officiated. The officiating involves hundreds of highly subjective incidents occurring in very short time periods. You are telling me that all the officials being employed by one of the parties, and evaluated by the same party, doesn't in any way bias the officiating?
Since I assume you say "no", can we apply this to other avenues of business?
Officiating sporting events is almost nothing like any other avenue of business. You are comparing apples and oranges. Actually, you are comparing apples and bicycles.
You can tell this is rue simply because if it were NOT true, then nobody would ever agree to allow conference officials to officiate non-conference games. Your own analogy proves you are wrong, and I don't even have to actually explain how NCAA football officials are hired, compensated, and rewarded.
Quote from: sbr on December 01, 2013, 09:53:01 PM
Pac-xx officials have been terrible for a long time. Incompetence is a much easier explanation than corruption.
I'm not saying corruption in the "we are going to fix the game" type of corruption. I'm just saying there is an inherent bias in all interconference games without neutral refs (basically the bowl games).
Imo, the ACC refs in interconference games have been just as bad if not worse. The gators won't allow ACC refs into the swamp after they were outright robbed by them about 10 years ago.
Quote from: sbr on December 01, 2013, 09:53:01 PM
Pac-xx officials have been terrible for a long time. Incompetence is a much easier explanation than corruption.
It's been a well-known fact in the counter-intelligence community that the North Koreans have approached various PAC-12 referees over the last several years, as gambling on Colorado games has proven to be nearly as lucrative as printing counterfeit currency, and more of a sure thing.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2013, 09:59:17 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 01, 2013, 09:53:01 PM
Pac-xx officials have been terrible for a long time. Incompetence is a much easier explanation than corruption.
I'm not saying corruption in the "we are going to fix the game" type of corruption. I'm just saying there is an inherent bias in all interconference games without neutral refs (basically the bowl games).
But how would this supposed bias express itself?
If it isn't overt in the manner of "I saw X, I am going to say I saw Y because that is better for my conference" then what are you talking about?
I've been on the field, I've had coaches and fans accuse me of bias, and the thing is, what is funny is how completely ludicrous it is from a practical standpoint. I could not even imagine HOW I would go about being biased without it being blindingly obvious.
If there is bias that matters, it has to be expressed in some fashion, there has to be some mechanism for it to express itself. What is that mechanism?
Do you think any of the officials in this game were watching that play and saw the ball get touched early, and just decide "Fuck it, I am going to pretend I didn't see that..."?
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2013, 08:17:49 PM
What is this? You pick two losses to highlight from Carr's last season and you pick Oregon and Wisconsin? Why not mention Ohio State, and oh yeah, APPALACHIAN STATE.
I mentioned the teams that curbstomped Michigan because Michigan wasn't competitive in those games. Michigan had every chance against ASU and OSU. It just lost. That happens, especially when that defense played against spread offenses like ASU's. Oregon was more than just the spread, it was great playcalling and execution. Wisky just blew them off the ball.
QuoteWhether he really left on his own terms is debatable. He was under intense pressure from alumni and fans and considering what they were supposed to do, his last year can best be described as an abortion. His record against Ohio State was pathetic once Tressel got there. He wasn't so old. I think he was pushed out, and I'm hardly alone in thinking that.
Anything is debatable, so long as you ignore the evidence. You'd hardly be alone in thinking the Moon landings were a hoax, either. But, absent any actual evidence for either the "Carr was fired" or the "Moon landings were faked" theories, you'd just be another nut case.
The refrain that the Pac-10/12 has terrible officials is pretty much accepted amongst Pac-12 fans as a matter of course.
I wonder how you could actually have some kind of objective measure of conference officiating quality?
The only thing I could think of is post-season assignments, which are done by the NCAA - see how many go to conference officials from each of the BCS conferences. Although even that would be hard to evaluate, since most officials will work more than one conference.
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2013, 10:08:26 PM
But, absent any actual evidence for either the "Carr was fired" or the "Moon landings were faked" theories, you'd just be another nut case.
Lloyd Carr built bridges among stakeholders across all silos, particularly during halftime interviews.
Quote from: sbr on December 01, 2013, 09:53:01 PM
Pac-xx officials have been terrible for a long time. Incompetence is a much easier explanation than corruption.
The real problem, as I see it, is that the Pac XX teams won't play unless with Pac XX officials. When UCLA comes to play Michigan, Michigan has to hire Pac XX officials and pay to bring them to Ann Arbor. I don't think that that applies to bowl games any more, but all the Rose Bowls for a long time were officiated by Pac 10 officials, reporting to the Pac 10 Head of officials, who worked for the conference commissioner. You gotta wonder if that played on their minds.
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2013, 10:08:41 PM
I wonder how you could actually have some kind of objective measure of conference officiating quality?
You could count calls for and against in interconference games and compare that to calls for and against, for each team (to control for teams that get a lot of flags regardless) in intraconference games or in bowls with third-party refs.
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2013, 10:02:57 PM
But how would this supposed bias express itself?
If it isn't overt in the manner of "I saw X, I am going to say I saw Y because that is better for my conference" then what are you talking about?
I've been on the field, I've had coaches and fans accuse me of bias, and the thing is, what is funny is how completely ludicrous it is from a practical standpoint. I could not even imagine HOW I would go about being biased without it being blindingly obvious.
If there is bias that matters, it has to be expressed in some fashion, there has to be some mechanism for it to express itself. What is that mechanism?
Do you think any of the officials in this game were watching that play and saw the ball get touched early, and just decide "Fuck it, I am going to pretend I didn't see that..."?
"Was that a hold, or was that not a hold, it is close. What to do?"
I heard on the Mark Richt radio show allude to it not being right an official was assigned to his game after making a controversial call against UGA in an earlier game. It can't be good for an official's future to have conference schools on the warpath against you. If there is a close call, and you are an SEC official, and the game is UGA - Clemson, do you think that would cause some officials to lean in one direction?
I've read studies that the entire home field in football may be due to referee bias in favor of home teams. Here is an article of one study on referee bias (there many others, this is just one from google):
http://deadspin.com/5407674/study-college-basketball-refs-suck-too
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2013, 10:22:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2013, 10:02:57 PM
But how would this supposed bias express itself?
If it isn't overt in the manner of "I saw X, I am going to say I saw Y because that is better for my conference" then what are you talking about?
I've been on the field, I've had coaches and fans accuse me of bias, and the thing is, what is funny is how completely ludicrous it is from a practical standpoint. I could not even imagine HOW I would go about being biased without it being blindingly obvious.
If there is bias that matters, it has to be expressed in some fashion, there has to be some mechanism for it to express itself. What is that mechanism?
Do you think any of the officials in this game were watching that play and saw the ball get touched early, and just decide "Fuck it, I am going to pretend I didn't see that..."?
"Was that a hold, or was that not a hold, it is close. What to do?"
I heard on the Mark Richt radio show allude to it not being right an official was assigned to his game after making a controversial call against UGA in an earlier game. It can't be good for an official's future to have conference schools on the warpath against you. If there is a close call, and you are an SEC official, and the game is UGA - Clemson, do you think that would cause some officials to lean in one direction?
I've read studies that the entire home field in football may be due to referee bias in favor of home teams. Here is an article of one study on referee bias (there many others, this is just one from google):
http://deadspin.com/5407674/study-college-basketball-refs-suck-too
What a terrible article.
QuoteThe probability of a foul being called on the visiting team was 7 percent higher than on the home team.
Does not prove bias, there are plenty of reasons this is likely the case:
1. If there is a home court advantage, and of course there is, then it stands to reason that the home team plays better, and hence fouls less.
2. The way scheduling works in college basketball, the better teams play a LOT more home games, so why would it come as any surprise that the home team gets fewer foul calls? Of course they do. The better way to measure this would be to measure only conference games where the teams being measured play home and away, so you can compare the same teams over time in different environments, but even then #1 is going to play a part.
Quote
* When the home team is leading, the probability of the next foul being called on them is about 6.3 percentage points higher than when the home team is trailing.
What a fucking bullshit stat. What is the same comparison with the visiting team? You can't just look at one team and decide there is bias without looking at the other.
Quote
* The larger the foul differential between two teams, the greater the likelihood that the next call will be made against the team with fewer fouls. For example, when a home team has three or more fouls than the visiting team, the probability that the next foul call is made against the visiting team is more than 60 percent. When the foul differential is as high as five, then that probability rises to 69 percent. The researchers also observed this trend when they looked at neutral-court games.
Again, same thing. This betrays a willfull attempt to mislead the reader by taking a stat in general, then applying it to only one particular case, and pretending like it only applies to that case.
What is really being said here is that when teams are leading, it is slightly likelier that the next foul will go against them. That is almost certainly true overall, but is true for both the home and visitors, of course, and says absolutely nothing about bias, much less about how you are convinced conference officials favor their conference over the other based on...absolutely no evidence at all.
I like how they throw in the bit about neutral court games, which is funny since it completely disproves the assertion that this has something to do with home and away.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2013, 10:22:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2013, 10:02:57 PM
But how would this supposed bias express itself?
If it isn't overt in the manner of "I saw X, I am going to say I saw Y because that is better for my conference" then what are you talking about?
I've been on the field, I've had coaches and fans accuse me of bias, and the thing is, what is funny is how completely ludicrous it is from a practical standpoint. I could not even imagine HOW I would go about being biased without it being blindingly obvious.
If there is bias that matters, it has to be expressed in some fashion, there has to be some mechanism for it to express itself. What is that mechanism?
Do you think any of the officials in this game were watching that play and saw the ball get touched early, and just decide "Fuck it, I am going to pretend I didn't see that..."?
"Was that a hold, or was that not a hold, it is close. What to do?"
But we are not talking about a hold or not hold - we are talking about your claim that the Pac-10 officials decided to give Oregon the ball, and the replay official decided to not see the touching. That isn't a marginal, could go either way call, that is a blatant screw up that can only be explained by
A. The crew just plain not seeing it in real time and fucking it up, or
B. A conscious decision to actively screw Oklahoma.
What a fucking travesty, anyone who voted Ohio st. ahead of Auburn that isn't literally an alumni of the school should be dragged out into the street and shot.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24311008/week-7-of-bcs-standings-released-auburn-behind-ohio-state
QuoteTHE TOP 16
1. Florida State (.995): The Seminoles' smallest margin of victory during the regular season was 14 points, 48-34 at Boston College in September. The runner-up? The 27-point margin between the 'Noles and then-undefeated Miami.
2. Ohio State (.950): Yes, Ohio State's schedule-strength is ranked 61st by Jeff Sagarin, and Auburn's is 26th. But should it come to the other potential SEC comparison, Missouri's is only 41st.
3. Auburn (.923): Of course, if Auburn's really a team of destiny, the Buckeyes will make it a moot point by losing to Michigan State, right?
4. Alabama (.854): With Missouri's win over Texas A&M, surely, surely, Alabama's national title reign is over. Even if an Ohio State loss opens up one BCS Championship slot, an SEC title must push the Tigers past the Crimson Tide in the polls, and Mizzou already owns an advantage in the computer rankings. And as for the other slot, you'd need FSU to lose to Duke. It wasn't the case the past two years, but in 2013 a single loss will rule the Tide out.
5. Missouri (.843): Gary Pinkel must be slightly bummed that Gus Malzahn will deprive him of consensus national Coach of the Year honors, and vice versa.
6. Oklahoma State (.763): The Cowboys really, really wish the playoff had come a year sooner; with just the one loss and a potential Big 12 championship under their belt, they'd have stood a solid shot of making the four-team field.
7. Stanford (.707): Speaking of inexplicable losses, how close to the BCS championship mix would the Cardinal be without losses to teams with a combined 11 losses of their own?
8. South Carolina (.704): Three years running, the Gamecocks have lost the SEC East to a team they beat in the regular season, but that's what happens when you lose to 2011 Auburn and 2013 Tennessee (and get the short end of the 2012 scheduling stick).
9. Baylor (.662): Hard to argue the Bears' apparent great leap forward on defense was entirely legitimate after letting Clint Chelf rip them apart and then giving up 38 points to TCU, the Frogs' season-high against BCS competition.
10. Michigan State (.653): Ohio State's rushing attack vs. Michigan State's rushing defense -- the former ranked No. 1 in the country in yards per-carry, the latter No. 1 in yards per-carry allowed -- is the very definition of "irresistible force, immovable object."
11. Arizona State (.583): The last time the Sun Devils beat Arizona as badly as they did Saturday, they wound up in the Rose Bowl. Will that be coincidence or not?
12. Oregon (.532): Rumors of an Alabama-Oregon Orange Bowl are sweeter than the fruit for which it's named.
13. Clemson (.520): Tigers are undefeated against everyone other than Florida State or South Carolina the past two seasons, but 0-4 vs. the 'Noles and Gamecocks.
14. Northern Illinois (.481): Fresno State's loss makes it official: beat Bowling Green in the MAC title game, and the Huskies will make it two BCS bowls in two years.
15. LSU (.421): Tigers' loss to Ole Miss looks like it's cost them a BCS berth of their own.
16. UCF (.386): While the Knights are in the top 16, their place in the BCS standings doesn't matter nearly as much to them as beating SMU next week.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 01, 2013, 11:09:10 PM
What a fucking travesty, anyone who voted Ohio st. ahead of Auburn that isn't literally an alumni of the school should be dragged out into the street and shot.
Fuck you Tim.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 01, 2013, 11:09:10 PM
What a fucking travesty, anyone who voted Ohio st. ahead of Auburn that isn't literally an alumni of the school should be dragged out into the street and shot.
Guess they shouldn't have lost to LSU.
Don't be an idiot.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2013, 11:10:35 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 01, 2013, 11:09:10 PM
What a fucking travesty, anyone who voted Ohio st. ahead of Auburn that isn't literally an alumni of the school should be dragged out into the street and shot.
Fuck you Tim.
The Big Ten is crap compared to the SEC.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 01, 2013, 11:10:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 01, 2013, 11:09:10 PM
What a fucking travesty, anyone who voted Ohio st. ahead of Auburn that isn't literally an alumni of the school should be dragged out into the street and shot.
Guess they shouldn't have lost to LSU.
Don't be an idiot.
No kidding; and LSU and South Carolina shouldn't have lost their gimmes, either. But that's life in the big conference.
QuoteThe Big Ten is crap compared to the SEC.
It's still the Big Ten, dude. We aren't talking about some team from the WAC here.
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2013, 10:34:33 PM
But we are not talking about a hold or not hold - we are talking about your claim that the Pac-10 officials decided to give Oregon the ball, and the replay official decided to not see the touching. That isn't a marginal, could go either way call, that is a blatant screw up that can only be explained by
A. The crew just plain not seeing it in real time and fucking it up, or
B. A conscious decision to actively screw Oklahoma.
It doesn't have to be so clear cut. The crowd and Oregon reacted as though they had the ball. An Oklahoma dude actually had the ball, but sometime after the play was over. The official has to make something of a guess regarding what happened. I've never said there was a conscious decision to screw Oklahoma...I'm just saying that when a Pac 12 ref has to make a call like that, it is more likely to go in the Pac 12 teams favor.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 01, 2013, 11:16:33 PM
QuoteThe Big Ten is crap compared to the SEC.
It's still the Big Ten, dude. We aren't talking about some team from the WAC here.
First he defiles my Irish with Timmay Taint, and then he does the same to the SEC. I have to put a hit out on him before he does something to Ray Rice or the Orioles bullpen.
Anyone here believe Ohio State could win against Auburn?
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2013, 11:17:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2013, 10:34:33 PM
But we are not talking about a hold or not hold - we are talking about your claim that the Pac-10 officials decided to give Oregon the ball, and the replay official decided to not see the touching. That isn't a marginal, could go either way call, that is a blatant screw up that can only be explained by
A. The crew just plain not seeing it in real time and fucking it up, or
B. A conscious decision to actively screw Oklahoma.
It doesn't have to be so clear cut. The crowd and Oregon reacted as though they had the ball. An Oklahoma dude actually had the ball, but sometime after the play was over. The official has to make something of a guess regarding what happened. I've never said there was a conscious decision to screw Oklahoma...I'm just saying that when a Pac 12 ref has to make a call like that, it is more likely to go in the Pac 12 teams favor.
And I am saying you don't know what you are talking about.
It always come down to something like this when this is brought up - some kind of double secret super impossible to actually evidence "gut feeling". Which is just laughable to anyone who has actually been in that position, making those kinds of calls under pressure. It just doesn't work that way.
You aren't sitting there thinking like that, like "Man, I could go either way...might as well help out the conference...". It just doesn't work like that.
Honestly, most of the time I am making a bang -bang call, the best I can manage is to keep the damn colors straight in my head, much less which team is which, who I am supposed to "want" to win, and what would be the best way to make that happen.
Mostly what I care about is trying to get it right, and knowing that I get it wrong enough even when I am trying to get it right that it would be stunningly stupid to actually make a decision counter to what I at least THINK is right. The percentages simply are not there.
And the idea that all seven of them on that crew all subconsciously decided to screw Oklahoma in the exact same manner?
It just doesn't make any sense when you think about it rationally.
The ONLY thing you have as an official at that level is your integrity and commitment to trying to be scrupulously fair. The moment you lose that, your career is done, with any conference. You really think the Pac-12 director of officials is going to reward an official for showing bias towards the conference? There is no amount of money to be gained by the conference from winning any particular game that could outweigh the damage done by a credible accusation of bias in officiating.
Quote from: lustindarkness on December 01, 2013, 11:29:21 PM
Anyone here believe Ohio State could win against Auburn?
Things happen in 3s for a team like Auburn. The Georgia Deflection, the Saban Brain Freeze...so there's one more left for the SS-Waffel Haus.
So no, I don't think Ohio State can stop that running game. Or Destiny.
If the SEC is so great why is a putrid run of the mill bunch of chumps like Gary Pinkel's Columbia Kittens playing for the title? If Missouri wins I will never let you SEC punks hear the end of it. Only second rate conferences let second rate teams win them.
Come on Auburn, don't fail me.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2013, 11:32:09 PM
If the SEC is so great why is a putrid run of the mill bunch of chumps like Gary Pinkel's Columbia Kittens playing for the title? If Missouri wins I will never let you SEC punks hear the end of it. Only second rate conferences let second rate teams win them.
Oh c'mon man! They won 13 Big XII championships in all sports!
I mean...Iowa State won more, but they just got that 14th last year!
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 01, 2013, 11:34:43 PM
Oh c'mon man! They won 13 Big XII championships in all sports!
I mean...Iowa State won more, but
And that is counting their freaking Big 12 north titles. I mean seriously they were the biggest losers in the Big 12, the fact they are winning shit in the SEC just amuses and baffles me. So much for the SEC being superior.
I think it was like 7 "real" championships. Scrub bottomfeeders.
A&M, on the other hand, has settled in in pretty much the exact same place they always seemed to be.
Here is a better article exploring referee bias than the first one that came up that I linked to before.
http://www.oregonlive.com/nba/index.ssf/2009/06/professors_nba_officating_stud.html
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2013, 11:40:12 PM
Here is a better article exploring referee bias than the first one that came up that I linked to before.
http://www.oregonlive.com/nba/index.ssf/2009/06/professors_nba_officating_stud.html
I've read that one before. It is...interesting.
It is notable that it has never been published, did not survive any peer review, and its findings are rather tame. They pretty much amount to the fact that if we assume the study is 100% correct (a stretch to say the least), there is very, very mild bias amongst officials towards the team that is losing. Shrug. Not terribly surprising. In fact, I can state pretty unequivocally that there is very much a sense of "don't pile on" when it comes to blow out games, and certainly it is the case that if a team is getting creamed, I am probably not that inclined to calling a marginal travel on them.
I guess maybe that is "bias", I think it is more a matter of game management.
It speaks absolutely nothing to your claim that conference officials favor their own conference when officiating out of conference games though.
This is like accusing someone of habitual hit and run, and using as evidence a study that shows that every now and again the person drives faster than the speed limit.
I'm not aware of any studies examining bias in out of conference college football games.
I'm suspicious because:
a) there is a very obvious conflict of interest,
b) people in the sport have openly expressed concern about the conflict of interest to the extent that actions have been taken,
c) my sense watching the games is that there is sometimes bias,
d) During the past ~10 years, I can think of 3 cases where egregious officiating affected the end of really important games:
-FSU-Florida in Gainesville from about 10 years ago
-that Oklahoma - Oregon game
-ASU - Wisconsin this year
In each case, it was an interconference game and the calls went in favor of the team with the officials. Maybe that is coincidence. I am probably forgetting a bunch of examples of horrible officiating anyway. But this is my impression.
e) I've never heard of a major team being indifferent to the conference of the officials showing up. Ie, lets just use conference x officials for all the games. It implicitly indicates that it matters, even though presumably a conference could save money by letting other conferences pick up all their games.
Quote from: lustindarkness on December 01, 2013, 11:29:21 PM
Anyone here believe Ohio State could win against Auburn?
Flip a coin.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 12:34:31 AM
a) there is a very obvious conflict of interest,
How so? Refs don't get paid more if "their" teams win.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 12:34:31 AM
I'm not aware of any studies examining bias in out of conference college football games.
I'm suspicious because:
a) there is a very obvious conflict of interest,
This is false. Refs get nothing more if the team from the conference that employes them wins, and lose a LOT if there is ever a perception among those who assign games that an official is not fair. Remember, officials usually work for more than one conference, and bowl games are assigned by the NCAA. There is a LOT to lose by any suggestion that an official is tryiing to throw things one way or another.
Quote
b) people in the sport have openly expressed concern about the conflict of interest to the extent that actions have been taken,
Unlike officials, almost everyone associated with college athletics has clear and obvious bias, and hence are largely not trustworthy arbiters of the issue. However, if you talk to the people who do not have said vested interest, I bet they would opine that the idea that officials make calls in favor of one conference over another is ludicrous. Talk to coordinators of officials, or Rogers Redding.
Quote
c) my sense watching the games is that there is sometimes bias,
You are a fan, and are incredibly biased, uninformed, and largely ignorant of how games are officiated from a mechanical and philosophical perspective. You would not no bias if someone beat you about the head and shoulders with it. Seriously, listening to fans say stuff like this is like being an astro-phycisist and listening to someone "prove" that the moon landings are a hoax.
Quote
d) During the past ~10 years, I can think of 3 cases where egregious officiating affected the end of really important games:
Only three? Really?
Quote
-FSU-Florida in Gainesville from about 10 years ago
-that Oklahoma - Oregon game
-ASU - Wisconsin this year
In each case, it was an interconference game and the calls went in favor of the team with the officials. Maybe that is coincidence. I am probably forgetting a bunch of examples of horrible officiating anyway. But this is my impression.
I agree that this is your impression.
Quote
e) I've never heard of a major team being indifferent to the conference of the officials showing up. Ie, lets just use conference x officials for all the games. It implicitly indicates that it matters, even though presumably a conference could save money by letting other conferences pick up all their games.
And yet this is generally not a real bone of contention among conferences, and in fact is almost always agreed in a perfectly amicable manner, because the people who actually make the decisions (the ADs and conference coordinators) know that in fact this is simply a non-issue in actual reality.
To the extent that it is a legitimate concern, it is more about relationships, communication, and conference tendencies and how games are officiated than it is about any idea that some team is going to get screwed because the other conferences officials are going to job them in some way so secret even the officials involved won't know how they do it. :P
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2013, 10:15:35 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 01, 2013, 09:53:01 PM
Pac-xx officials have been terrible for a long time. Incompetence is a much easier explanation than corruption.
The real problem, as I see it, is that the Pac XX teams won't play unless with Pac XX officials. When UCLA comes to play Michigan, Michigan has to hire Pac XX officials and pay to bring them to Ann Arbor. I don't think that that applies to bowl games any more, but all the Rose Bowls for a long time were officiated by Pac 10 officials, reporting to the Pac 10 Head of officials, who worked for the conference commissioner. You gotta wonder if that played on their minds.
This doesn't sound right to me. Do you have any evidence or sources this is true?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2013, 01:36:16 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 12:34:31 AM
a) there is a very obvious conflict of interest,
How so? Refs don't get paid more if "their" teams win.
:huh:
They are paid and evaluated by one of the two entities represented in the contest. Do you really not see a conflict of interest there?
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2013, 01:47:09 AM
Only three? Really?
I named 3 important interconference games that went for the conference with the officials in the last 10 years after egregious decisions.
Surely you can name some that went against the conference with the officials, and a huge number of intraconference games during that time period.
I'll wait for you to do this.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 09:53:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2013, 01:47:09 AM
Only three? Really?
I named 3 important interconference games that went for the conference with the officials in the last 10 years after egregious decisions.
Surely you can name some that went against the conference with the officials, and a huge number of intraconference games during that time period.
I'll wait for you to do this.
Why would I do that?
If the best you can come up with is 3 examples in ten years, and when pressed don't have any idea how they could actually be influenced in the manner you claim beyond some secret bias so secret even the officials involved aren't aware they are biased, I am pretty comfortable concluding you are just another fan who thinks they know anything about officiating, but of course does not.
So keep on waiting.
Great AR comes into this thread finally but then ruins it with long and tedious ref discussions. :mad:
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 09:45:43 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2013, 01:36:16 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 12:34:31 AM
a) there is a very obvious conflict of interest,
How so? Refs don't get paid more if "their" teams win.
:huh:
They are paid and evaluated by one of the two entities represented in the contest. Do you really not see a conflict of interest there?
They are paid by the conference one of the enitities belongs to, and they are evaluated (and their livelihoo and ability to continue being paid) by many, many conferences, and people (NCAA) not associated with the conference.
Further, you've provided no reason to believe that the people who actually pay them and evaluate them within the conference would have any desire to have their officials cheat on their behalf - what incentive would the Pac-12 director of officials have to encourage their officials to cheat and try to influence the outcome of a game that could possibly be greater than the incredible negative perception that such cheating would certainly create?
How, in your mind, does this cheating occur? How does the Pac-12 let their officials know that they ought to be cheating on behalf of the conference? Do they send a memo? Do you think all the officials are in on it, or just a few? If in fact there is a perception amongst officials, and there must be SOME perception of SOME kind if it rises to the level of influencing calls as you are claiming, how is that perception reinforced do you think? When officials get their game evaluations, do you imagine the Pac-12 director of officials lets them know that calls against the Pac-12 teams are going to be more criticized as such?
What are the actual, practical means by which this conspiracy to cheat is executed, whether it be overt or not overt? Your claim is that the bias is so extreme that it actually effects the outcome of games enough to make a difference. There must be some actual means by which this is happening then, right?
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2013, 10:08:15 AM
Great AR comes into this thread finally but then ruins it with long and tedious ref discussions. :mad:
Ref discussions are never tedious!
OK, actually ref discussions with fans who think they know anything about officiating and don't want to actually learn are rather pointless...
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2013, 10:09:30 AM
They are paid by the conference one of the enitities belongs to, and they are evaluated (and their livelihoo and ability to continue being paid) by many, many conferences, and people (NCAA) not associated with the conference.
Further, you've provided no reason to believe that the people who actually pay them and evaluate them within the conference would have any desire to have their officials cheat on their behalf - what incentive would the Pac-12 director of officials have to encourage their officials to cheat and try to influence the outcome of a game that could possibly be greater than the incredible negative perception that such cheating would certainly create?
How, in your mind, does this cheating occur? How does the Pac-12 let their officials know that they ought to be cheating on behalf of the conference? Do they send a memo? Do you think all the officials are in on it, or just a few? If in fact there is a perception amongst officials, and there must be SOME perception of SOME kind if it rises to the level of influencing calls as you are claiming, how is that perception reinforced do you think? When officials get their game evaluations, do you imagine the Pac-12 director of officials lets them know that calls against the Pac-12 teams are going to be more criticized as such?
What are the actual, practical means by which this conspiracy to cheat is executed, whether it be overt or not overt? Your claim is that the bias is so extreme that it actually effects the outcome of games enough to make a difference. There must be some actual means by which this is happening then, right?
Bringing in the word "conspiracy" for anything I've said really shows how desperate you are in this argument...
They are paid by the conferences! If you poll Ford workers on the question "Ford or Chevy", I'm sure Ford will win, and vice versa. It isn't a conspiracy...its a simple conflict of interest and bias.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2013, 10:12:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2013, 10:08:15 AM
Great AR comes into this thread finally but then ruins it with long and tedious ref discussions. :mad:
Ref discussions are never tedious!
OK, actually ref discussions with fans who think they know anything about officiating and don't want to actually learn are rather pointless...
When you talk about subjective evaluations, fans are biased. Players are biased. Coaches are biased. Administrators are biased. Alums are biased. In other venues, judges can be biased--that is why there are strict rules regarding even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
But it seems that the one group that is above all the influence of bias, and is able to completely evenhandedly evaluate what is happening on the field, are college officials.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 10:25:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2013, 10:12:00 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2013, 10:08:15 AM
Great AR comes into this thread finally but then ruins it with long and tedious ref discussions. :mad:
Ref discussions are never tedious!
OK, actually ref discussions with fans who think they know anything about officiating and don't want to actually learn are rather pointless...
When you talk about subjective evaluations, fans are biased. Players are biased. Coaches are biased. Administrators are biased. Alums are biased. In other venues, judges can be biased--that is why there are strict rules regarding even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
But it seems that the one group that is above all the influence of bias, and is able to completely evenhandedly evaluate what is happening on the field, are college officials.
Nobody said they were above any bias, I said the bias you imagine is in your imagination.
But by and large, yes, they are pretty good at evenhandedly evaluating what is happening on the field.
And just like if you came into a thread with the lawyers and started blabbing about how judges are routinely biased to such an extent that outcomes of cases are commonly influenced by that bias, and you know this because you just know...then yeah, you would largely get the same result you are getting from me from them, I imagine.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2013, 11:27:39 AM
Nobody said they were above any bias, I said the bias you imagine is in your imagination.
But by and large, yes, they are pretty good at evenhandedly evaluating what is happening on the field.
And just like if you came into a thread with the lawyers and started blabbing about how judges are routinely biased to such an extent that outcomes of cases are commonly influenced by that bias, and you know this because you just know...then yeah, you would largely get the same result you are getting from me from them, I imagine.
Shockingly, we have a legal system where judges aren't paid by the plaintiffs bar.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 11:36:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2013, 11:27:39 AM
Nobody said they were above any bias, I said the bias you imagine is in your imagination.
But by and large, yes, they are pretty good at evenhandedly evaluating what is happening on the field.
And just like if you came into a thread with the lawyers and started blabbing about how judges are routinely biased to such an extent that outcomes of cases are commonly influenced by that bias, and you know this because you just know...then yeah, you would largely get the same result you are getting from me from them, I imagine.
Shockingly, we have a legal system where judges aren't paid by the plaintiffs bar.
Yes judges salaries are paid by the government.
Would you say that judges are biased in favour of the government?
Your analogy about judges is actually pretty apt, but not in the manner you think.
You are claiming that there is institutional bias, not individual - that Pac-12 officials routinely and consistently favor the Pac-12. That is not the same as saying that individual judges can be biased in some cases, it is saying that judges as a group are routinely biased, and not based on some personal criteria, but an an inevitable result of them being employed by someone. So why aren't you claiming that all judges are biased for the prosecution, since it is the State which is paying them, and your claim is that if you are paid by some particular entity, then you MUST be biased in favor of that entity...even if it isn't even in the entity interests for you to be biased or favor them?
Judges recuse themselves if there is a perception of *personal* bias...and the same is true for officials. You cannot officiate for a team where you have some personal connection, for example. I cannot work my local high school's games because my son goes to school there. If I were to get a job with the Pac-12, I could not officiate Arizona games, since I went to school there, and am an avowed fan of the team.
But you are not making an accusation of personal bias - your claim is that ALL Pac-12 officials are biased in favor of the Pac-12 in some systemic manner, because that is the organization that employs them. Which is simply stupid, since the organization pays them specifically to NOT be biased, and any actual bias displayed would have exactly the opposite result of what you are claiming - rather than being rewarded, they would be punished severely.
As I've said over and over again, I am an official. I am employed by a conference. I sometimes do games outside that conference. The idea that I cannot be objective when doing a game between my conference and another is 100% perfect evidence that you simply do not understand how officiating works in the actual world, rather than in the fans world.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 11:36:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2013, 11:27:39 AM
Nobody said they were above any bias, I said the bias you imagine is in your imagination.
But by and large, yes, they are pretty good at evenhandedly evaluating what is happening on the field.
And just like if you came into a thread with the lawyers and started blabbing about how judges are routinely biased to such an extent that outcomes of cases are commonly influenced by that bias, and you know this because you just know...then yeah, you would largely get the same result you are getting from me from them, I imagine.
Shockingly, we have a legal system where judges aren't paid by the plaintiffs bar.
And shockingly, we have a officiating system where officials are not paid by the coaches.
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2013, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 11:36:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2013, 11:27:39 AM
Nobody said they were above any bias, I said the bias you imagine is in your imagination.
But by and large, yes, they are pretty good at evenhandedly evaluating what is happening on the field.
And just like if you came into a thread with the lawyers and started blabbing about how judges are routinely biased to such an extent that outcomes of cases are commonly influenced by that bias, and you know this because you just know...then yeah, you would largely get the same result you are getting from me from them, I imagine.
Shockingly, we have a legal system where judges aren't paid by the plaintiffs bar.
Yes judges salaries are paid by the government.
Would you say that judges are biased in favour of the government?
They must be, because anyone paid by someone is going to cheat in their favor....even if the person pay them doesn't want them to!
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 11:36:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2013, 11:27:39 AM
Nobody said they were above any bias, I said the bias you imagine is in your imagination.
But by and large, yes, they are pretty good at evenhandedly evaluating what is happening on the field.
And just like if you came into a thread with the lawyers and started blabbing about how judges are routinely biased to such an extent that outcomes of cases are commonly influenced by that bias, and you know this because you just know...then yeah, you would largely get the same result you are getting from me from them, I imagine.
Shockingly, we have a legal system where judges aren't paid by the plaintiffs bar.
not totally true; the government pays their salaries, the plaintiff's bar funds their election campaigns
Soooooooooooooooo
Uh
How bout them Buckeyes?
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2013, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 11:36:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2013, 11:27:39 AM
Nobody said they were above any bias, I said the bias you imagine is in your imagination.
But by and large, yes, they are pretty good at evenhandedly evaluating what is happening on the field.
And just like if you came into a thread with the lawyers and started blabbing about how judges are routinely biased to such an extent that outcomes of cases are commonly influenced by that bias, and you know this because you just know...then yeah, you would largely get the same result you are getting from me from them, I imagine.
Shockingly, we have a legal system where judges aren't paid by the plaintiffs bar.
Yes judges salaries are paid by the government.
Would you say that judges are biased in favour of the government?
When cases do involve the government as one party, there is tremendous opportunity for bias and influence. That is why the judiciary is a separate branch of government, that typically can not be removed under any but the most extreme circumstances, and don't have financial considerations in the case's outcome.
How would you feel about being on trial in a country where their wasn't an independent judiciary, and the future employment status of the judge was dependent on the party trying you?
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 12:34:31 AM
I'm not aware of any studies examining bias in out of conference college football games.
I'm suspicious because:
...
d) During the past ~10 years, I can think of 3 cases where egregious officiating affected the end of really important games:
-FSU-Florida in Gainesville from about 10 years ago
...
you have outed yourself ...no one who doesn't follow the big three in college football in florida (uf, fsu, and um) remembers that game
Are you bitter that the big east or acc officials never did that for miami when they played the gators?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 02, 2013, 11:48:16 AM
Soooooooooooooooo
Uh
How bout them Buckeyes?
Hang with me for a bit longer, I'm about to convince Berkut that refs are biased.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 11:52:25 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 02, 2013, 11:48:16 AM
Soooooooooooooooo
Uh
How bout them Buckeyes?
Hang with me for a bit longer, I'm about to convince Berkut that refs are biased.
Don't you have a mountain to climb or something?
Quote from: Rasputin on December 02, 2013, 11:51:01 AM
Are you bitter that the big east or acc officials never did that for miami when they played the gators?
Hell no. Miami has lost to the Gators once since like 1985. We own the Gators anyway.
Quote from: lustindarkness on December 02, 2013, 11:54:25 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 11:52:25 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 02, 2013, 11:48:16 AM
Soooooooooooooooo
Uh
How bout them Buckeyes?
Hang with me for a bit longer, I'm about to convince Berkut that refs are biased.
Don't you have a mountain to climb or something?
Okay, I'll let it go.
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2013, 01:55:17 AM
You know, given his sudden in-depth interest in college football, I truly believe that AR is the poster formerly known as D4H.
he is
Quote from: Rasputin on December 02, 2013, 11:45:32 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 11:36:36 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2013, 11:27:39 AM
Nobody said they were above any bias, I said the bias you imagine is in your imagination.
But by and large, yes, they are pretty good at evenhandedly evaluating what is happening on the field.
And just like if you came into a thread with the lawyers and started blabbing about how judges are routinely biased to such an extent that outcomes of cases are commonly influenced by that bias, and you know this because you just know...then yeah, you would largely get the same result you are getting from me from them, I imagine.
Shockingly, we have a legal system where judges aren't paid by the plaintiffs bar.
not totally true; the government pays their salaries, the plaintiff's bar funds their election campaigns
It is inevitable that every Languish thread will eventually get hijacked by Lawyers.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 11:50:23 AM
How would you feel about being on trial in a country where their wasn't an independent judiciary, and the future employment status of the judge was dependent on the party trying you?
They are not independent, they are paid by people who work for the executive. Their job status (being selected for higher judicial positions) is absolutely dependent on the executive and legislative branches.
Did it occur to you even once in the nine years you pretended not to be Dorsey that you might want to concede once in a while that you are wrong? Bias exists in all human decision-making. There is no more evidence that it is worse in Pac 12 officials (or any other officials, for that matter) than for any other human beings than there is evidence that Lloyd Carr go fired.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 02, 2013, 11:48:16 AM
Soooooooooooooooo
Uh
How bout them Buckeyes?
I love them candies.
Quote from: Rasputin on December 02, 2013, 11:58:39 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 30, 2013, 01:55:17 AM
You know, given his sudden in-depth interest in college football, I truly believe that AR is the poster formerly known as D4H.
he is
Only D4H could manage to take this thread and smear it with his own feces to the point that nobody can see through the windshield.
This thread: AGED
I have to say that the fact that the PAC-12 insists on having its officials work all its OOC games (a demand that no other FBS conference makes AFAIK) does create unfortunate implications. But it's certainly not proof of bias on the part of those officials.
It is just the PAC's endless paranoia about the dreaded East Coast bias.
I'm sure there are more, but I've caught a couple Facebook posts so far from Herd fans making the claim that the Auburn FG TD return was not the greatest NCAA play ever and that it was the last second play in which Marshall beat Xavier in 1971 :bleeding:
Quote from: derspiess on December 02, 2013, 01:58:11 PM
I'm sure there are more, but I've caught a couple Facebook posts so far from Herd fans making the claim that the Auburn FG TD return was not the greatest NCAA play ever and that it was the last second play in which Marshall beat Xavier in 1971 :bleeding:
First of all the greatest NCAA play ever was stopping Lendale White on 4th and 2 in the 2006 Rose Bowl.
Secondly I am pretty sure Xavier only plays Basketball.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2013, 02:00:30 PM
First of all the greatest NCAA play ever was stopping Lendale White on 4th and 2 in the 2006 Rose Bowl.
Wrong. :P 2007 Fiesta, Boise State's Statue of Liberty trumps that. Suck it, Sooners.
Single greatest football play ever was the Roughriders Defence getting called for having 13 men on the field when the Alouettes missed a dieing second game-winning field goal, which allowed the Als to score the FG on the re-kick and win the 97the Grey Cup.
USC might be stealing UWs coach:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/bruce-feldman/24315215/usc-to-hire-sarkisian
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 02, 2013, 02:22:49 PM
USC might be stealing UWs coach:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/bruce-feldman/24315215/usc-to-hire-sarkisian
:lmfao:
The guy is barely over 500 at Washington.
Well when he took the job they just had an 0-12 season. He was not taking over a powerhouse here.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2013, 02:36:35 PM
Well when he took the job they just had an 0-12 season. He was not taking over a powerhouse here.
Okay, but they were 7-6 last year (year 4) and 8-4 this year (year 5).
He might have taken over a dumpster fire, but he is coaching the Washington Huskies. That should be a quality program. His record the last couple of years is not impressive.
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2013, 02:21:27 PM
Single greatest football play ever was the Roughriders Defence getting called for having 13 men on the field when the Alouettes missed a dieing second game-winning field goal, which allowed the Als to score the FG on the re-kick and win the 97the Grey Cup.
Save your weirdo Canuckistani sports for the Curling Thread.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2013, 02:00:30 PM
Secondly I am pretty sure Xavier only plays Basketball.
Well obviously there's a reason they only play basketball. After losing to Marshall they probably figured they might as well throw in the towel on football.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 02, 2013, 02:44:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2013, 02:21:27 PM
Single greatest football play ever was the Roughriders Defence getting called for having 13 men on the field when the Alouettes missed a dieing second game-winning field goal, which allowed the Als to score the FG on the re-kick and win the 97the Grey Cup.
Save your weirdo Canuckistani sports for the Curling Thread.
Its sad that the best play BB has ever seen is one involving an inability to count.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 02, 2013, 02:43:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2013, 02:36:35 PM
Well when he took the job they just had an 0-12 season. He was not taking over a powerhouse here.
Okay, but they were 7-6 last year (year 4) and 8-4 this year (year 5).
He might have taken over a dumpster fire, but he is coaching the Washington Huskies. That should be a quality program. His record the last couple of years is not impressive.
In the 5 seasons before Steve Sarkisian arrived in Seattle, Washington went 12-47; under Sarkisian, the Huskies are 34-29.
That being said, I'm very curious to see who they get to come in, the first two names being talked about are Petersen from Boise and Jim Mora from UCLA
I know UCLA is cheap as hell but that would be a bizarre move for Mora.
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2013, 04:27:33 PM
I know UCLA is cheap as hell but that would be a bizarre move for Mora.
He is a graduate of UW.
UW should try to get Leach! He is a fine coach.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2013, 04:31:13 PM
UW should try to get Leach! He is a fine coach.
:mad:
Quote from: dps on December 02, 2013, 01:49:49 PM
I have to say that the fact that the PAC-12 insists on having its officials work all its OOC games (a demand that no other FBS conference makes AFAIK) does create unfortunate implications. But it's certainly not proof of bias on the part of those officials.
I don't know that the Pac still do this, I just know that they used to do it.
Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2013, 04:31:13 PM
UW should try to get Leach! He is a fine coach.
I don't think him moving to UW is going to save Arizona from his fearsome wrath.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 01, 2013, 11:16:33 PM
QuoteThe Big Ten is crap compared to the SEC.
It's still the Big Ten, dude. We aren't talking about some team from the WAC here.
Yeah I'd love to see Ohio State kept out of the title game but it's unlikely a Big Ten school that has been in the upper part of the rankings all year is going to get jumped. There's actually no precedent for an undefeated team from a BCS conference being jumped and pushed out of the 1/2 spots by a team with one loss. The BCS does a good job of preventing true travesties like BYU being awarded a national title in a year in which their best opponent was 6-6 Michigan in the Holiday Bowl, but it doesn't do a good job at handling genuine strength of schedule differences between schools that have "prestige" in the major conferences. Maybe if they hadn't intentionally watered down all of the computer rankings and hadn't changed the formula to make the two human polls 2/3rds of the formula it would do a better job with this. But instead they opted to make it so that it would always be the "perceived" #1/#2 that play, to minimize controversy.
Quote from: katmai on December 02, 2013, 04:28:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2013, 04:27:33 PM
I know UCLA is cheap as hell but that would be a bizarre move for Mora.
He is a graduate of UW.
Do you think that is why Sark is leaving? Surely that kind of thing is not a big deal.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 02, 2013, 04:38:00 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 01, 2013, 11:16:33 PM
QuoteThe Big Ten is crap compared to the SEC.
It's still the Big Ten, dude. We aren't talking about some team from the WAC here.
Yeah I'd love to see Ohio State kept out of the title game but it's unlikely a Big Ten school that has been in the upper part of the rankings all year is going to get jumped. There's actually no precedent for an undefeated team from a BCS conference being jumped and pushed out of the 1/2 spots by a team with one loss. The BCS does a good job of preventing true travesties like BYU being awarded a national title in a year in which their best opponent was 6-6 Michigan in the Holiday Bowl, but it doesn't do a good job at handling genuine strength of schedule differences between schools that have "prestige" in the major conferences. Maybe if they hadn't intentionally watered down all of the computer rankings and hadn't changed the formula to make the two human polls 2/3rds of the formula it would do a better job with this. But instead they opted to make it so that it would always be the "perceived" #1/#2 that play, to minimize controversy.
Well right because then you get 2003 with Oklahoma over USC.
Anyway the BCS is just a few weeks from being dead and buried.
Quote from: grumbler on December 02, 2013, 04:32:03 PM
Quote from: dps on December 02, 2013, 01:49:49 PM
I have to say that the fact that the PAC-12 insists on having its officials work all its OOC games (a demand that no other FBS conference makes AFAIK) does create unfortunate implications. But it's certainly not proof of bias on the part of those officials.
I don't know that the Pac still do this, I just know that they used to do it.
I think the insistence is that they use Pac-12 officials for all non-conference home games (as opposed to using a mixed crew). I think.
I would have no problem with conference assignors just getting officials from a third conference for non-conference match ups, at least between BCS schools.
However, the problem is going to be one of mechanics and procedure. There is a LOT of mechanics and procedure to officiating, and the issue with using non-home conference officials is that it is likely a much larger hassle to deal with those things - stuff like when you go out on the field, rules interpretations, mechanics interpretations, signals, even crap like transportation and hotels - all those things have "standards" set for them for the officials on a per-conference basis. Even pay, for that matter. The SEC, for example, pays quite a bit better than everyone else - and supposedly they can and do poach the best officials from other conferences.
Quote from: katmai on December 02, 2013, 04:21:09 PM
In the 5 seasons before Steve Sarkisian arrived in Seattle, Washington went 12-47; under Sarkisian, the Huskies are 34-29.
That being said, I'm very curious to see who they get to come in, the first two names being talked about are Petersen from Boise and Jim Mora from UCLA
A bad coach can tank at Washington (hello Ty Willingham!), but a really good coach should be able to compete for and not too infrequently win the Pac 12. I wouldn't be too upset to see him leave if I was a Husky fan--not thrilled either--just sort of meh. Mora or Petersen would be an upgrade, imo.
Oh he was on soft hot seat this year if he didn't improve on the seven win mark. I'm more concerened with the reports of Wilcox the DC and Lopoi the excellent recruiter both leaving as well.
I like Mike Leach.
Wait till he locks your kid in the closet!
Quote from: katmai on December 02, 2013, 05:48:01 PM
Wait till he locks your kid in the closet!
My kid will take it like a man.
Another name being talked about is Nussmeier(sp) the OC at Alabama as he use to coach same position at UW
Christmas comes early to Columbus, OH:
QuoteU-M's Hoke: No changes to staff, Gardner to return in '14
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131202/SPORTS0201/312020091/U-M-s-Hoke-No-changes-staff-Gardner-return-14?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131202/SPORTS0201/312020091/U-M-s-Hoke-No-changes-staff-Gardner-return-14?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE)
Depends if Miller and Shazier stay for their senior season.
The move was a no-brainer for Sark. He was one 8 or 9 win season away from being fired, now he should get 3-4 almost guaranteed years at a better job with a nice pay raise.
I bet UW breathes a sigh of relief. Sark was good enough that it would have been hard to fire him, but I'm not sure he was good enough to get the Huskies over the top. He did all the heavy lifting and turned a terrible program around rather quickly, but then they plateaued. I don' think it will be too hard to replace Sark with a similar to better coach, and they could really turn things with a home run hire. Losing the entire staff would be tough but not a death sentence or anything.
It's a bit of a head scratcher for USC. I would think they could have done better for themselves, but they got their #2 guy so I guess that is worth something.
The real UW fired their coach after the season tanked. Now there is no ideas of who will coach, someone mentioned Mangino but I think he would die of a heart attack trying to attack one of his players here at 7200 feet.
Quote from: sbr on December 02, 2013, 07:30:56 PM
The move was a no-brainer for Sark. He was one 8 or 9 win season away from being fired, now he should get 3-4 almost guaranteed years at a better job with a nice pay raise.
I bet UW breathes a sigh of relief. Sark was good enough that it would have been hard to fire him, but I'm not sure he was good enough to get the Huskies over the top. He did all the heavy lifting and turned a terrible program around rather quickly, but then they plateaued. I don' think it will be too hard to replace Sark with a similar to better coach, and they could really turn things with a home run hire. Losing the entire staff would be tough but not a death sentence or anything.
It's a bit of a head scratcher for USC. I would think they could have done better for themselves, but they got their #2 guy so I guess that is worth something.
Quote
Steve Sarkisian's UW legacy: middle rung in the Pac-12
Steve Sarkisian left for USC on Monday, but his 24-21 record at Washington raises questions about how successful he really was.
By Bud Withers
Seattle Times college football reporter
On a Thursday night in the first week of December in 2008, the news broke that Washington had made a surprise choice for its new football coach: Steve Sarkisian.
Monday morning, news crackled again, that Sarkisian is on his way to USC.
Another surprise.
A storied football colossus that uses national-championship and Heisman Trophies for doorstops and paperweights just hired a guy whose conference head-coaching record at a highly respected school was exactly 24-21.
What's always been said about jobs is true, whether it's dishwasher at KFC or head football coach at USC: It's about whom you know. And Sarkisian knew a lot of people at USC from his days there under Pete Carroll.
Five years ago, if Washington had hired the best assistant from the staff of, say, Texas, and he'd gone 24-21 in league games at the UW, does he get a sniff from the Trojans?
Or think about it like this: In the Apple Cup the other day, Washington State was at its own 28 with 5½ minutes left, down 20-17. If it had driven the length of the field, scored and won the game, and the Huskies go 4-5 in the league, can USC hire Sarkisian? If it can, then John McKay, John Wayne and Howard Jones just flinched, in unison, in their graves.
So strike up the chorus: "Hey, moron, he led them back from 0-12."
Yes, Sarkisian inherited all the trappings of the last year of Tyrone Willingham, when the Huskies went winless. But Willingham is so despised among a segment of the UW faithful that they're willing to overlook the fact that Sarkisian walked into a program that included Chris Polk, Mason Foster, Donald Butler, Alameda Ta'amu, Daniel Te'o Nesheim, Senio Kelemete, Devin Aguilar, Everette Thompson, Cort Dennison and Victor Aiyewa.
Oh, yeah, and a quarterback who went No. 8 in the 2011 draft, Jake Locker.
It was hardly the dictionary definition of an 0-12 program, even if Sarkisian had to coach those players better (he did) and do a morale transplant (he did). Yet some people are so smitten by the upgrade in the energy of the program, so grateful to be rid of Willingham, that they forget: It's part of the job description. You don't double your kid's allowance just because he did his homework.
Is the program better than when Sarkisian came to it? Absolutely. Did he author some sort of stunning turnaround? I don't think so.
What he was, was Coach Close. A year ago, in season No. 4, the Huskies were 7-4 with the Apple Cup and a bowl game between them and a nine-win season. They coughed up an 18-point, fourth-quarter lead to lose to WSU (committing nine penalties in the last 16 minutes) and then got nipped by Boise State in Las Vegas.
This year, nine wins is still a possibility. But the league record is 5-4, as it was last year, as it was the year before that, as it was the year before that. Washington was right there against Stanford and UCLA, but this is the reality: The Huskies blew away the two league doormats, California and Colorado, and went 3-4 against the average, good and very good teams in the league.
A lot of what he did was admirable. Yet five years later, the Huskies are merely a middle-rung team in the Pac-12.
Sark's allies will argue that he coached at a place where too many people don't understand that times have changed, that the Pac-12 is different now from when Don James was around, that expectations of too many Washington fans are of a different time.
I'm still of the belief that the Huskies have enough going — tradition, great city, good school, significant recruiting base — that you really have to screw it up not to win at Washington, at least moderately.
Ultimately, that's exactly what Sarkisian did. He won, moderately.
Quote from: Savonarola on December 02, 2013, 07:25:58 PM
Christmas comes early to Columbus, OH:
QuoteU-M's Hoke: No changes to staff, Gardner to return in '14
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131202/SPORTS0201/312020091/U-M-s-Hoke-No-changes-staff-Gardner-return-14?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131202/SPORTS0201/312020091/U-M-s-Hoke-No-changes-staff-Gardner-return-14?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE)
The story is a non-story. Hoke didn't say that the entire staff would return, he said he didn't anticipate any changes. That is, of course, what he would say if he did anticipate changes, because you don't fire anyone until you are ready to fire them, and that isn't now. Ditto for departures; you don't announce them until the departing coach announces it, and the departing coach wouldn't announce until after the bowl game.
So, there may be changes for next year, but only a moron would announce them now, and Hoke is no moron (though he was talking to at least one moron; the one who asked the question).
I don't know whether Hoke will bring back all his assistants next year, but I know he will be bringing back the pizza delivery guy.
He's a perfect fit for Wazzu.
We expect better for the Huskies.
Quote from: katmai on December 02, 2013, 10:10:23 PM
He's a perfect fit for Wazzu.
We expect better for the Huskies.
Yeah he is definitely best fit for a Texas Tech type program like Wazzu.
Suppose Ohio State, Florida State, and Auburn all get upset in their conference title games. Who do you figure plays for the BCS title then? Missouri vs. Alabama? Missouri vs a 1-loss Big 12 champ (either Oklahoma State or Baylor--if they don't both lose this week)? Some other matchup?
Probably Missouri vs. Alabama
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 03, 2013, 02:20:20 AM
Probably Missouri vs. Alabama
I'd love to see the BCS go out with such a whimper. Would there be any Tide fans in attendance at all? I'm pretty sure the TV audience would only be three Alabama fans, 300,000 Missouri fans (and their families), and four bandwagoneers who don't understand what is happening.
I honestly don't know, if all lose I'd put 1 loss Alabama ahead of Ohio State and Missouri for sure, and two loss Auburn would be out of the picture.
So the question is who do you give a shot against 1 loss 'Bama...Mizzou, OSU, or Florida State. I think OSU is out because of weak schedule. I like to think as highly ranked as FSU is maybe they could sneak in as #2 so it'd at least be an interesting game...probably would end up being a terrible matchup between Bama and Mizzou, though.
You can't really disqualify FSU or OSU on the basis of weak schedule without disqualifying both for that reason.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 03, 2013, 02:07:26 PM
You can't really disqualify FSU or OSU on the basis of weak schedule without disqualifying both for that reason.
You can disqualify OSU for having some very close calls against a weak schedule.
FSU's closest game was against Boston College where they won by 14. Every other game has been won by at least something like 27-28 points. I don't think FSU has ever at any point in the season led by less than 10 in the fourth quarter.
Ohio State has had several very close calls, including benefiting from a late and questionable officiating decision against Northwestern.
Yeah the arguments were used against Alabama in the 1992 title game and against Ohio State in the 2002 title game right? They had weak schedules and just barely beat their opponents?
How did those go again?
Besides in our scenario FSU just lost to Duke so...
Quote from: alfred russel on December 03, 2013, 02:22:06 PM
Ohio State has had several very close calls, including benefiting from a late and questionable officiating decision against Northwestern.
Oh? Tell me more.
Quote from: dps on December 03, 2013, 02:13:14 AM
Suppose Ohio State, Florida State, and Auburn all get upset in their conference title games. Who do you figure plays for the BCS title then? Missouri vs. Alabama? Missouri vs a 1-loss Big 12 champ (either Oklahoma State or Baylor--if they don't both lose this week)? Some other matchup?
NIU! NIU!
The glorious Big 12 champion will have the honor of matching up with NIU. Prepare for the clash of the titans!
Highest rated Fiesta Bowl ever am I right?
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2013, 03:14:25 PM
Besides in our scenario FSU just lost to Duke so...
It is a silly scenario.
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2013, 04:54:07 PM
The glorious Big 12 champion will have the honor of matching up with NIU. Prepare for the clash of the titans!
Highest rated Fiesta Bowl ever am I right?
I'd watch it just to see how Lynch does against some tougher competition.
One of the BCS computer systems has NIU ranked 2nd, although I think it is an artifact of the way BCS rigs the computer rankings.
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2013, 03:41:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 03, 2013, 02:22:06 PM
Ohio State has had several very close calls, including benefiting from a late and questionable officiating decision against Northwestern.
Oh? Tell me more.
They were PAC 12 officials.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 03, 2013, 05:41:14 PM
I'd watch it just to see how Lynch does against some tougher competition.
One of the BCS computer systems has NIU ranked 2nd, although I think it is an artifact of the way BCS rigs the computer rankings.
Perfect timing! I come out as Dorsey right when JR starts posting in the college football thread.
There was some academic that analyzed the BCS computer rankings and came to two conclusions: one of the rankings took into account scores, and another took into account previous year's games. This year Sagarin broke out a new formula, speculated to comply with the rules (his was the one that supposedly looked at scores), and is now putting out jacked up results.
In case you are wondering, all the ranking formulas are secret, except for one. And in the one that is not secret, several years ago someone noticed a anomolous result: it turned out the data input missed a game.
This is the system that determines 1/3 of a national championship game.
As for NIU, they got smoked by FSU last year, and they had close calls this year.
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2013, 05:49:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2013, 03:41:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 03, 2013, 02:22:06 PM
Ohio State has had several very close calls, including benefiting from a late and questionable officiating decision against Northwestern.
Oh? Tell me more.
They were PAC 12 officials.
They were Big 10 officials.
All Pac-12 players QB Marcus Mariota and Center Hroniss Grasu will both return to Oregon next year.
Kind of surprising for Mariota, every draft projection has him as a top 5 pick if he declares. As a Ducks fan I'll obviously be thrilled to see him come back, but more so as a fan of college football. This will probably cost him money but I like that he likes the college life so much hi is willing to give it up.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 03, 2013, 05:55:56 PM
There was some academic that analyzed the BCS computer rankings and came to two conclusions: one of the rankings took into account scores, and another took into account previous year's games. This year Sagarin broke out a new formula, speculated to comply with the rules (his was the one that supposedly looked at scores), and is now putting out jacked up results.
In case you are wondering, all the ranking formulas are secret, except for one. And in the one that is not secret, several years ago someone noticed a anomolous result: it turned out the data input missed a game.
This is the system that determines 1/3 of a national championship game.
Sagarin's "real" rankings has NIU at #38, the BCS variant has them at #2.
Similar issue with Massey who has NIU at #23 in his real computer ranking, but #5 for the BCS version.
Thank Dawkins this system is ending.
Brian Cook's piece today on SB Nation is hilarious:
QuoteThis Week In Schadenfreude collects the weekend's craziest college football internet and gives it to you in a steaming pile. This week: Roll Tide! Things I don't understand because I am not from the South! I hope you don't understand them either! Cactus! If you want to replace swearing with umlauts, you're at Georgia Tech! You can do that! Bo Pelini covering refs in mucus! Ole Miss fans too big for their britches! Roll Tide! Roll Tide! Roll Tide!
This Week In Schadenfreude: Roll Tide! Into despair! (http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/12/3/5171702/this-week-in-schadenfreude-roll-tide-into-the-despair-that-is-our-lot)
Very few things bring out the absolute beauty of the internet like college football.
Cactus
Quote from: sbr on December 03, 2013, 06:30:18 PM
All Pac-12 players QB Marcus Mariota and Center Hroniss Grasu will both return to Oregon next year.
Kind of surprising for Mariota, every draft projection has him as a top 5 pick if he declares. As a Ducks fan I'll obviously be thrilled to see him come back, but more so as a fan of college football. This will probably cost him money but I like that he likes the college life so much hi is willing to give it up.
Oregon's brilliance in giving cheerleaders scholarships pays off big time.
Supposedly the hot choice for Wyoming is Jeff Tedford.
Well he won (avoiding those last couple of years) at Cal, and that is something...
Tressel4Wyoming
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 03, 2013, 09:58:48 PM
Tressel4Wyoming
He would need a sweater-parka here.
Tressel4snuggie
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 03, 2013, 09:58:48 PM
Tressel4Wyoming
All the free tattoos in the world isn't going to attract elite talent to Wyoming.
Quote from: dps on December 03, 2013, 10:36:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 03, 2013, 09:58:48 PM
Tressel4Wyoming
All the free tattoos in the world isn't going to attract elite talent to Wyoming.
That is what I live with.
We could offer hookers and blow for all recruits and they would still not come here. Come to think of it, Colorado tried that and it didn't work.
Quote from: PDH on December 03, 2013, 10:43:58 PM
Come to think of it, Colorado tried that and it didn't work.
Bill McCartney disagrees.
Boise St. is surely comparable to Wyoming in terms of location.
It's about a mile lower.
Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2013, 10:46:26 PM
Quote from: PDH on December 03, 2013, 10:43:58 PM
Come to think of it, Colorado tried that and it didn't work.
Bill McCartney disagrees.
He even got his daughter in on the deal.
Holy crap I just realized West Virginia lost of Iowa State last Saturday. Oh for Godsake WV you have to fire Dana now. No Big 12 coach should be allowed to survive losing to Kansas and Iowa State in the same season. They should have dumped all his stuff on the sidewalk and changed the locks on his office as soon as the game ended.
Wasn't it in triple OT or some such? I know I saw parts of it, but couldn't recall who won.
Apparently Luck came out and said they were hanging on to Holgo, for whatever that is worth.
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2013, 10:09:36 AM
Holy crap I just realized West Virginia lost of Iowa State last Saturday. Oh for Godsake WV you have to fire Dana now. No Big 12 coach should be allowed to survive losing to Kansas and Iowa State in the same season. They should have dumped all his stuff on the sidewalk and changed the locks on his office as soon as the game ended.
Uh, yeah. It's pathetic how low the program has sunk under his leadership. I'd understand some minor slippage in adjusting to a new, more competitive conference. But he's just a terrible head coach in every respect. He was a great OC, but can't handle the responsibility of running an entire team. He doesn't manage games well at all, seems to be a terrible recruiter, and filled the coaching staff with his drinking buddies who are all pretty poor coaches themselves. WVU should have hired Doc Holliday instead of him.
Problem right now is his buyout is apparently over $11 million. I've read that it drops to $2 million after next year. So if that's true I can't blame the university for not shitcanning him just yet. On the other hand, you have to factor in lower ticket sales and the possibility of alumni holding out on contributions, as nobody is happy with him.
Bring back Bill Stewart. It could be like Weekend at Bernies.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2013, 01:09:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2013, 10:09:36 AM
Holy crap I just realized West Virginia lost of Iowa State last Saturday. Oh for Godsake WV you have to fire Dana now. No Big 12 coach should be allowed to survive losing to Kansas and Iowa State in the same season. They should have dumped all his stuff on the sidewalk and changed the locks on his office as soon as the game ended.
Uh, yeah. It's pathetic how low the program has sunk under his leadership. I'd understand some minor slippage in adjusting to a new, more competitive conference. But he's just a terrible head coach in every respect. He was a great OC, but can't handle the responsibility of running an entire team. He doesn't manage games well at all, seems to be a terrible recruiter, and filled the coaching staff with his drinking buddies who are all pretty poor coaches themselves. WVU should have hired Doc Holliday instead of him.
Problem right now is his buyout is apparently over $11 million. I've read that it drops to $2 million after next year. So if that's true I can't blame the university for not shitcanning him just yet. On the other hand, you have to factor in lower ticket sales and the possibility of alumni holding out on contributions, as nobody is happy with him.
Actually they didn't stipulate a buyout for DH, whenever he is terminated without cause he continues to receive his owed money annually until the year his contract runs out. The only difference is, once fired he will receive his annual contract salary in one annual lump sum each year instead of in the form of a monthly paycheck as he does now. So if the fire him at the end of next season he will receive three more lump sum payments of $2.7m, $2.8m, and $2.9m--which is exactly what he would be owed if he coached in 2015, 2016, and 2017. Then there are two bonuses of almost random amounts, $50,000 and $300,000 that he gets as long as he isn't fired for cause and doesn't quit. Meaning if he is "fired for convenience" he still gets the bonuses which from what I can tell are intended to be types of retention bonuses. If they fired him right now he'd be owed $10.9m + the $350k in bonuses, paid out in a regular schedule. If they fire him at the end of next season it's $8.75m over three years for not coaching football vs $11.25m over four years for not coaching football if he is fired now.
Most significantly there is no clause about him losing the money if he takes work elsewhere, most likely he'd find another OC position earning at least $250-300k (more likely $400-500k in today's atmosphere) and would still be drawing head coach payouts annually.
If DH leaves on his own "for convenience" he owes the university $2m.
Yuck. WVU has made some really shitty decisions with the last two coaches and their contracts.
Woah, that's an insanely awful contract. (or insanely awesome if you're the coach)
This happened at the Arizona State - Arizona game and imo is even more awesome than the Auburn return for a touchdown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CYq1O76rEg
God I love college football.
ASU is always making the news for the right reasons.
Quote from: Berkut on December 05, 2013, 01:19:02 AM
ASU is always making the news for the right reasons.
The old guy is wearing blue. That could be an arizona fan. In which case, he has more fight in him than the rest of the Arizona Wildcats put together.
Probably not an Arizona fan though.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 05, 2013, 12:37:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 05, 2013, 01:19:02 AM
ASU is always making the news for the right reasons.
The old guy is wearing blue. That could be an arizona fan. In which case, he has more fight in him than the rest of the Arizona Wildcats put together.
Probably not an Arizona fan though.
If he is an Arizona fan, we should see if he has any eligibility left.
Hey, Katamai. Get ready for Petersen and the Boisification of Washington!
Quote from: PDH on December 06, 2013, 08:28:32 AM
Hey, Katamai. Get ready for Petersen and the Boisification of Washington!
That is what ESPN is saying, but it was quick 90min meeting last night so unsure of the veracity of the ESPN report.
No knock on Washington, but I'm surprised he couldn't get a better job than that.
He turned down Stanford, UCLA and USC before.
And fuck you fucking douchebag retard.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 06, 2013, 08:34:30 AM
No knock on Washington, but I'm surprised he couldn't get a better job than that.
Boise St had a mediocre year...maybe he sees his window of opportunity closing. If he wants to stay on the west coast, what better job is going to open up anytime soon?
Better job for him?
I don't think there is any such thing.
Quote from: katmai on December 06, 2013, 08:37:54 AM
He turned down Stanford, UCLA and USC before.
And fuck you fucking douchebag retard.
LOL, no shit. Why go to those pressure cookers when he can be successful without having to deal with the big city California media? Fuck that, he's going to go through life on cruise control now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 06, 2013, 10:27:17 AM
LOL, no shit. Why go to those pressure cookers when he can be successful without having to deal with the big city California media? Fuck that, he's going to go through life on cruise control now.
:yes: I thought that was always a thing with Petersen. He just doesn't like messing around with the media a whole lot, even moreso than most coaches.
I am looking forward to the Ice Bowl in Waco on Saturday. 20s and freezing rain? Ah yeah those Texas players are going to love that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 06, 2013, 10:27:17 AM
LOL, no shit. Why go to those pressure cookers when he can be successful without having to deal with the big city California media? Fuck that, he's going to go through life on cruise control now.
You can win big at Washington. But the expectations aren't to win big every year, and you can't possibly do worse than Ty Willingham.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 06, 2013, 01:30:19 PM
You can win big at Washington. But the expectations aren't to win big every year, and you can't possibly do worse than Ty Willingham.
Yeah that is what Notre Dame thought. Then they hired Charlie Weis.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 04, 2013, 11:35:11 PM
This happened at the Arizona State - Arizona game and imo is even more awesome than the Auburn return for a touchdown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CYq1O76rEg
God I love college football.
What's grandpa yelling at the beginning there? Gimme the ball, gimme the ball?
Quote from: katmai on December 06, 2013, 08:37:54 AM
He turned down Stanford, UCLA and USC before.
And fuck you fucking douchebag retard.
YES! Strike him down and we'll rule the galaxy.
Quote from: Valmy on December 06, 2013, 01:37:02 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 06, 2013, 01:30:19 PM
You can win big at Washington. But the expectations aren't to win big every year, and you can't possibly do worse than Ty Willingham.
Yeah that is what Notre Dame thought. Then they hired Charlie Weis.
Charlie Weis > Ty Willingham. Charlie Weis was a terrible coach, but he took over a badly floundering program and got it into back to back BCS bowls. I know there is a strong case that Ty Willingham had more success than Weis, but Willingham was a shitty recruiter. Washington let him play out the string and you saw what the effect was. ND pulled the plug early.
If I found out that a meteor was going to destroy the planet earth and everything on it, I would have some joy in knowing that Larry Coker was about to be pulverized.
However, UTSA has won 7 and 8 games in its first years as a FBS school. They won enough to get bowl eligible this year. I have to respect that.
I hope it's snowing tomorrow everywhere so we can get some real football. Ice ball.
Rumours are swirling that Carey may stay another year.
I suspect that is about 85% wishful thinking.
Sankey hasn't decided either, imagine if they both came back?!
Man this has been one intense OU/OSU game. I know the fucking Sooners are going to screw Texas in the end though.
THE SOONERS DO IT!
BOOMER!!! SOO *pukes*
Ok I cannot go that far but NOW IS THE TIME MACK WIN THE DAMN CONFERENCE. Please lets not blow this again.
Lol, not that anyone here gives a shit (and why would you) but it was a huge scandal to Herd fans that they didn't get to host the C-USA championship game. The tiebreaker called for the higher BCS ranked team to host. Of course neither team was remotely close to being BCS-ranked, so they calculated extended rankings and Rice happened to get the more favorable ranking. Marshall thought that their 9-3 record with an easy schedule was so much better than Rice's 9-3 record.
So anyway the Herd fans who traveled to Houston were strutting around yesterday and this morning like they had already won the game. I guess they figured they had it in the bag because apparently THEY ARE... MARSHALL.
Rice won 41-24 :lol:
Yeah Rice's first conference title since the bizarre five way SWC tie in 1994 and their first non-shared since the 50s. It takes a very special sort of conference to get Rice to win it.
You realize every time you post about Marshall, you're supporting their claim to being WVU's rival. :contract:
Who says there no longer is a Big 12 Championship game?
Baylor just looks like they want it better in the early going.
I don't know. Baylor is fucking up a lot, but Case is just awful so far. Well, more awful than usual.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 07, 2013, 04:16:03 PM
I don't know. Baylor is fucking up a lot, but Case is just awful so far. Well, more awful than usual.
I didn't say they weren't fucking up just that they looked like they wanted it more :P
Yeah Case is playing horribly. Sort of a Texas tradition when playing for the Big 12 Championship.
Four possessions in Baylor territory, no points. Case is just killing us.
And Baylor misses a chip shot. Still only 3-0 as we get towards half time.
And Baylor misses another FG. Just......just sit Case down put Swoopes in. What's he going to do? Miss open WRs? Throw picks in the redzone? It'll be like Case is still out there if he does!
Really, Mack has to see that Case is just horrible today, right? Why wouldn't he want to see if the backup can get it done? 1/11 for 10 yards and an INT (ESPN has 2/12 for 24 and an INT). C'mon now.
E: And now Santos tries to pick it up and run with it instead of just falling on it. Okay, Baylor just got a free play. :huh:
Maybe Texas' running game is starting to wear them down :cool:
I wish Berg would just blast people like I know he can instead of trying to bounce it outside, etc. Brown is doing a pretty good job of punishing potential tacklers right now when he gets the opportunity, so it'd be nice to have his "relief" coming in and doing the same thing. Just beat on them.
Malcolm Brown has really got it today. Just feed the beast Mack, Texas can win this.
Tied at 3 baby! :punk:
No, no matter how well they're running it, there will be at least one really ill timed pass called for Case to screw up and kill a drive. Overstreet in for Berg running for 5 yards the first time he touches it, except its on 3rd and 7 after a stupid long pass.
Joey Harrington just said Case McCoy is a younger Major Applewhite. Is he high?
Maybe he meant junior high age.
3-3 at the half. SEC quality defense obviously on display here.
Quote from: sbr on December 07, 2013, 05:11:36 PM
Maybe he meant junior high age.
:D It does make a lot more sense that way.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 07, 2013, 05:16:28 PM
3-3 at the half. SEC quality defense obviously on display here.
Yeah their title game is a point a minute fest.
Quote from: Valmy on December 07, 2013, 05:17:05 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 07, 2013, 05:16:28 PM
3-3 at the half. SEC quality defense obviously on display here.
Yeah their title game is a point a minute fest.
I still can't believe Missouri, of all teams, might actually win the conference in their second year there.
E: They should probably try to stop the run at some point though.
Son of a
Way to start the second half Texas :(
What...you don't think Case, the Moxie King, can bring the Horns back? :P
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 07, 2013, 05:53:13 PM
What...you don't think Case, the Moxie King, can bring the Horns back? :P
Case is terrible today. He couldn't convert 3rd and 5 if the DBs gave his receivers a 20 yard cushion.
Wasting a great day by Malcolm Brown man. Baylor scores on this drive you can stick a fork in Mack Brown and Texas' championship hopes.
Wow McCoy finally throws a nice ball and Sanders just drops it.
Goddamnit
TD Texas! Ok temporarily off suicide watch here.
That TD pass was just hilarious.
I liked Harrington immediately calling Case "Crazy Legs."
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 07, 2013, 03:53:25 PM
You realize every time you post about Marshall, you're supporting their claim to being WVU's rival. :contract:
I understand how you'd think that. But I'd like you to spend some time around their fans-- I mean quality time-- and let me know what you think. Ed seems to have a strong opinion about them and he's not a WVU fan at all.
Marshall is actually a program I'd like to be able to support. It's just that their fans prevent that from happening.
And they are legit rivals in basketball. Just not football.
10 completions for 45ish yards now.
E: 11 for 48 now! Offense on a roll now! Woo!
The Thundering Turd.
What the heck happened on that punt? Did it go out of bounds or something?
Man Fox sucks at College Football.
Oh my god Texas did knock it out of bounds :bleeding:
Brutal.
That freaking mistake on that muff opportunity is going to cost Texas big time. Now down two scores with only five minutes to go. Damn.
:blink: :bleeding: :lmfao: Holy shit Case
E: haha they took the TD off the board
GODDAMMIT!!! Case you freaking no talent ^*$&%^^%
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 07, 2013, 06:57:23 PM
:blink: :bleeding: :lmfao: Holy shit Case
E: haha they took the TD off the board
Yeah our defense sure toughened up there eh? TD the next play.
Mack Brown's team sucks it up with a championship on the line? No shit?
Nothing to do now but wonder who the interim coach will be for the bowl game.
Gonna be Gerg
As a side note, on the one replay they showed it didn't look like much of a penalty. Probably shouldn't have taken it off the board, I don't think, but that guy is a douche, and it didn't matter in the end anyway.
Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2013, 06:41:19 PM
Marshall is actually a program I'd like to be able to support. It's just that their fans prevent that from happening.
Is Marshall where uppity West Virginian kids go?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2013, 07:07:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2013, 06:41:19 PM
Marshall is actually a program I'd like to be able to support. It's just that their fans prevent that from happening.
Is Marshall where uppity West Virginian kids go?
No, not really at all.
Well congrats to the Big 12 Champion Baylor Bears. Man I never thought I would be typing that shit.
Here Texas goes to the loser bowl once more. 8-4 record with everybody coming back and an easy as shit schedule. Just a joke of a coaching job by Mack. What an embarrasment. At least Texas beat OU so it could have been worse.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2013, 07:07:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2013, 06:41:19 PM
Marshall is actually a program I'd like to be able to support. It's just that their fans prevent that from happening.
Is Marshall where uppity West Virginian kids go?
I get the feeling it is more like the Texas Tech of West Virginia.
Seems like I'm hearing references to the Delaware Wing-T more often. They just mentioned it during the Auburn-Mizzou game (though they called it the "Wing-Tie"), as Auburn uses a modified version of it sometimes.
Now the pundits are saying Craig Bohl (head coach at FBS North Dakota State) will be the HC at Wyoming. Well, at least he has beaten some FCS teams the last couple of years when he was an underdog, that is more than the last HC...
Plus, he can rebuild the team and bolt to Nebraska like Devaney did years ago...
Speaking of which, hard to believe there's still a full quarter left of Auburn-Mizzou.
Man, Cannonade, I would take 8-4 now.
Auburn #18 just sent Josey into the corner of a golf cart on the sidelines.
Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2013, 07:16:37 PM
Speaking of which, hard to believe there's still a full quarter left of Auburn-Mizzou.
Yeah what ever happened to the physical SEC defenses? More than just Missouri and A&M came over from the Big 12, the Big 12 style of football went with them.
I think the SEC has been exposed by the Big 12 moles!
I like Case McCoy's numbers:
12/34 54 yards 1 td 2 ints 1.6 yards per attempt. LOL
Meanwhile Texas only gave the ball to red hot Malcolm Brown 25 times (for 131 yards 5.2 yards per carry)
Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2013, 07:14:31 PM
Seems like I'm hearing references to the Delaware Wing-T more often. They just mentioned it during the Auburn-Mizzou game (though they called it the "Wing-Tie"), as Auburn uses a modified version of it sometimes.
Yeah, apparently Gus Malzahn had found an old copy of Ted Kempski's book on The Delaware Wing T, tinkered with it and found gold.
Fun fact: Belichick accused Mary Schottenheimer of being so archaic of a coach that he was probably still using the Delaware Wing T. Another reason to hate that cheating rat fuck.
War Eagle!
I hate Fox.
Sparty's opening drive took a shitload of time. Only got 3 out of it, but damn
Quote from: lustindarkness on December 07, 2013, 08:34:55 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 07, 2013, 08:15:42 PM
I hate Fox.
What does the fox say?
QuoteLook, sir. Look, sir. Mr. Knox, sir.
Let's do tricks with bricks and blocks, sir.
Let's do tricks with chicks and clocks, sir.
Hey Wyoming hired Craig Bohl to be their head coach.
The stream I was watching crashed and I missed the last TD. <_<
Yay Sparty.
I did see that touchdown. :)
Oh boy. Let the SEC mutual masturbation begin. Red states rule bitchezzzz!!!!
Don't worry, Urban Meyer will get over the disappointment by drowning his sorrows in another coed.
Eh, Florida St. beating Auburn would do a much better job ending the perception of SEC dominance than Florida St. beating Ohio St.
Ohio State just couldn't take another beat down in the BCS title game.
QuotePolice don riot gear, monitor crowds as fires burn in East Lansing
Authorities took precautionary anti-riot measures as more than a thousand people celebrated the Spartans' football victory amid two fires at Cedar and River streets, near campus.
Wearing riot gear, more than a dozen East Lansing police officers closely watched the jubilant crowd, as of 2 a.m., but made no attempts to break up the group.
Bonfire flames sometimes reached 15 or 20 feet high as the crowd fed the fire with whatever wood they could find or sometimes firecrackers.
Joe Sheena, an MSU senior, was just glad to be going to the Rose Bowl in in his last year. Standing a few feet from the bonfires, he saw it as harmless fun.
"It's more tradition than anything," he said. "We're not a school of pyromaniacs."
MSU athletic director Mark Hollis, who was in Indianapolis for the game, said via text, "People need to celebrate in a responsible way. I am proud of the performance of our football team. There is no place for destructive celebrations. I hope our fans and campus are safe."
MSU Alumni Association president Scott Westerman took to Twitter to voice his thoughts on the scene in East Lansing: "True Spartans do not burn things, break laws or mess with my Spartan Cops If you do, you're not one of us."
Police arrested nearly a dozen disruptive students during their intervention, subduing them and taking them away in handcuffs.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcverbelun.com%2Fimages%2FVCS-Fiddler-Big.jpg&hash=1fe52831718ee4583678873cda61774def511560)
TRADITION!
Holy Crap! :o
https://twitter.com/markjskiba/status/407245822087020544
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FqTNFpTh.jpg&hash=b11cc6f2c6f57090e8e6806526c7c450e2961705)
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 07, 2013, 11:03:03 PM
Hey Wyoming hired Craig Bohl to be their head coach.
If he returns the team to some level of being tougher, wins some games against teams with winning records, and then leaves for Nebraska or higher points...I will be happy.
I would love a return to simple above .500 play with tackling, is that too much to ask?
I actually like Fox Sports for College Football, not necessarily because of any particular talent with their game calling or anything but just because I don't like everything being within ESPN. I think CBS probably does the best job with games. I'm not one to usually notice this, but I will say the crew covering the MSU-OSU game was very blatantly pulling for OSU throughout the game. Anytime Miller broke loose or OSU did anything remotely good they were immediately excited, while they basically had muted response to any MSU big plays. They also took Miller-worship to the point of fawning over him for
not dropping a bad snap (that despite being bad actually flew directly at his chest so it didn't require superman skills to catch it.)
I honestly have always liked OSU just because I've always hated Michigan, but I was pulling for MSU last night because I despise crybaby Urban Meyer. I could live off the schadenfreude from seeing his crybaby expression and tone in the post game interview for a month.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2013, 12:09:35 AM
Ohio State just couldn't take another beat down in the BCS title game.
If I have anything at all against OSU it is the delusions of their fans. I work with a few, and throughout this year the few times I've talked sports with them I've brought up that whatever team they face in the BCS game (if they were to go) would be a very good team, probably a Bama or FSU, and OSU has virtually no experience under UM or many of the current starters playing good teams in tough games. They also handwaived away their beat downs at the hands of Florida and LSU. One even said the LSU game "was actually pretty close"--which it wasn't. I watched that game, OSU lost the lead early and never got it back and while LSU may have only beaten them by 14 instead of the 27 Florida beat them by, the result was never really in doubt. LSU controlled that game from kickoff til the last whistle.
So Wyoming is getting the coach who won back to back championships at FCS NDSU. I sure hope Bohl can build Wyoming back up. If he wins, I will buy a sweater vest in brown and gold for this. It is hard to recruit to 7200 feet and the middle of nowhere (geez, even more nowhere than Fargo?)
It is so hard to be a Wyoming fan, and that is all I have.
You know, I have to respect you though - that is a real fan.
Seedy and his Notre Dame, D4 and his Miami, they aren't real fans. It is easy to be a fan of a powerhouse, and construct some bullshit reason (Oh, they are Catholic just like me! Notre Dame is the only Catholic University in America that plays football!) to be "fans" but really, they are just bandwagoners at the end of the day.
No worry about that when you are a fan of Wyoming.
Texas - Oregon in the Alamo Bowl. THAT should go well. :bleeding:
It sucks, too often it sucks. But in college football I get one team, and that is my Alma Mater. The best days of Wyoming were before I was self aware, back in the mid-1960s, there were a couple of glory years in the late 1980s, and Joe Tiller won 10 games in the mid 1990s...
But damn. Wyoming is the smallest state, with a small state mentality. The don't pay enough, Wyoming thinks a bowl game every few years is good enoug, and we the fans suffer through more 5 win seasons than we should. There are some good times, an 8 win season a couple of years ago, and some bad times (don't ask about when Wyoming won 5 games in 3 years), but for the most part there are just times and memories of the old timers.
Recently Wyoming has not even been the place where good coaches go for a couple of years before getting hired by a bigger school, they have just been stuck in the doldrums.
Still, I wear my Brown and Gold each fall, and I hope.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 08, 2013, 09:22:49 PM
Texas - Oregon in the Alamo Bowl. THAT should go well. :bleeding:
The worst thing about the bowl system is that it isn't really geared toward producing good matchups.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 08, 2013, 09:22:49 PM
Texas - Oregon in the Alamo Bowl. THAT should go well. :bleeding:
At least if Texas loses we can blame those corrupt PAC 12 refs.
I just cannot believe OU is going to the Sugar Bowl. Even in years Mack beats Stoops somehow Bob still owns his ass. His 9th BCS game.
There is a lot of but hurt around here that oklahoma was picked over Oregon.
Quote from: sbr on December 09, 2013, 12:22:59 AM
There is a lot of but hurt around here that oklahoma was picked over Oregon.
Maybe they shouldn't have been blown out by Arizona. That destroyed their season.
By the way can they bring that team to San Antonio and not the one that destroyed UCLA? That would be swell thanks.
Quote from: sbr on December 09, 2013, 12:22:59 AM
There is a lot of but hurt around here that oklahoma was picked over Oregon.
Oregon doesn't travel well, apparently. Bowl officials need the fans to buy tickets so they can pay themselves bloated salaries for part-time jobs. Oklahoma fans buy bowl tickets. Oregon fans (and, for that matter, Pac 12 fans in general) have the reputation that they do not (California bowl games excepted). That's one reason why teams like Michigan, Texas, and Notre Dame sometimes get into better bowl games than their records deserve - their fans go to bowls.
Quote from: grumbler on December 09, 2013, 06:57:27 AM
Quote from: sbr on December 09, 2013, 12:22:59 AM
There is a lot of but hurt around here that oklahoma was picked over Oregon.
Oregon doesn't travel well, apparently. Bowl officials need the fans to buy tickets so they can pay themselves bloated salaries for part-time jobs. Oklahoma fans buy bowl tickets. Oregon fans (and, for that matter, Pac 12 fans in general) have the reputation that they do not (California bowl games excepted). That's one reason why teams like Michigan, Texas, and Notre Dame sometimes get into better bowl games than their records deserve - their fans go to bowls.
Probably good points, I do not expect to see Oregon fans rushing to San Antonio, but in this case it was political. The Sugar Bowl recently signed a deal with the Big 12 and SEC and was looking to match up those leagues if it could. Oklahoma was available so they were picked.
Quote from: Berkut on December 08, 2013, 09:19:29 PM
You know, I have to respect you though - that is a real fan.
Seedy and his Notre Dame, D4 and his Miami, they aren't real fans. It is easy to be a fan of a powerhouse, and construct some bullshit reason (Oh, they are Catholic just like me! Notre Dame is the only Catholic University in America that plays football!) to be "fans" but really, they are just bandwagoners at the end of the day.
No worry about that when you are a fan of Wyoming.
Not all of us went to a Division I school, so save your moral superiority for the usual parenting bullshit.
I cannot imagine a better place for moral superiority than mocking the likes of Cowboys, Notre Dame, and Miami "fans".
Man, Miami seems to have a real problem with the bandwagon fans. At the first hint of shittiness, they're OFF, and you get photos of the Orange Bowl, or whatever it's called now, that look like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen%2Fblogs%2Fsptusncaafexperts%2F656617525.jpg&hash=7510376efa165fb0a3d518c88775a1a6d1f046d3)
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 09:53:46 AM
I cannot imagine a better place for moral superiority than mocking the likes of Cowboys, Notre Dame, and Miami "fans".
Now now, don't sell yourself short: your moral superiority spreads out much farther than that.
Miami gets a ton of local bandwagon support the moment they're really good, but anything less than 10-11 wins and BCS bowl games and it drops back down to the ultra-small core of genuine Miami fans.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 09, 2013, 10:18:36 AM
Miami gets a ton of local bandwagon support the moment they're really good, but anything less than 10-11 wins and BCS bowl games and it drops back down to the ultra-small core of genuine Miami fans.
I stopped rooting for them when Bernie graduated, but hey I'm just bandwagonin', so stay the fuck out of my way.
What is the timeline of your Florida bandwagoning? Just the Tebow years or was it a couple more years after he left?
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2013, 10:48:03 AM
What is the timeline of your Florida bandwagoning? Just the Tebow years or was it a couple more years after he left?
I was always a Steve Spurrier fan, because it was hilarious to see him blow blood vessels and punt on 3rd down when he was pissed at the offense, but it faded until Tebow made it interesting again. But much like the rest of the SEC, they're simply fun to watch because they recruit such great athletes.
However, you guys have a habit of confusing something I say, like, "Florida is going to crush XXX this week" with "ZOMG I LUV FLORIDA SO MUCH". You guys do that a lot.
I like to watch all of the SEC teams except Tennessee. Fucking Rocky Top is annoying as shit, and Phil Fulmer will always be the poster child of NCAA violations. But hey, I'm bandwagonin', so stay the fuck out of my way.
I never thought of CdM as being a fan of any one team as much as he was an opponent of a wide number of teams.
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2013, 09:53:46 AM
I cannot imagine a better place for moral superiority than mocking the likes of Cowboys, Notre Dame, and Miami "fans".
qft
ordinarily noles fans have some close connection to the school...now it seems like alll of america is cheering for fsu if only to dethrone the sec
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 09, 2013, 10:18:36 AM
Miami gets a ton of local bandwagon support the moment they're really good, but anything less than 10-11 wins and BCS bowl games and it drops back down to the ultra-small core of genuine Miami fans.
and inner city street thugs :contract:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 09, 2013, 11:24:35 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2013, 10:48:03 AM
What is the timeline of your Florida bandwagoning? Just the Tebow years or was it a couple more years after he left?
I was always a Steve Spurrier fan, because it was hilarious to see him blow blood vessels and punt on 3rd down when he was pissed at the offense, but it faded until Tebow made it interesting again. But much like the rest of the SEC, they're simply fun to watch because they recruit such great athletes.
However, you guys have a habit of confusing something I say, like, "Florida is going to crush XXX this week" with "ZOMG I LUV FLORIDA SO MUCH". You guys do that a lot.
I like to watch all of the SEC teams except Tennessee. Fucking Rocky Top is annoying as shit, and Phil Fulmer will always be the poster child of NCAA violations. But hey, I'm bandwagonin', so stay the fuck out of my way.
I still like steve spurrier....i invited him to join my linked in network for shock value, but hes not yet accepted
Florida State faces huge challenge in defeating SEC in title game
Jeremy Brevard-USA TODAY Sports
Florida State capped off its undefeated season and ACC title Saturday, soundly defeating the Duke Blue Devils 45-7. FSU, the only remaining undefeated team in the country, has earned a berth in the Vizio BCS National Championship Game on January 6th. The 'Noles' attack features the likely Heisman winner Jameis Winston at quarterback, and a stout defense that leads the country in scoring defense, pass defense and pass efficiency defense. The 'Noles now set their sights on Pasadena, where, according to media pundits, they'll face the SEC -- the conference that has won the last seven national titles.
Defensively, Florida State will certainly have its hands full against the SEC offensive attack, as the SEC will line-up 2012 Heisman winner Johnny Manziel under center. Manziel leads a dangerous passing attack which features three stud wide receivers in Dorial Green-Beckham, Amari Cooper and Donte Moncrief. This trio should give FSU's secondary nightmares, particularly cornerbacks Ronald Darby and PJ Williams. Behind Manziel, a trio of workhorses in Tre Mason, Alex Collins and Todd Gurley will keep Florida State's defensive line and linebackers on their toes all night, and look to grind the 'Noles defense down. Look for the SEC to attempt to gobble up yards on the ground early, as head coach Nick Saban has indicated offensive coordinator Gus Malzahn would like to set the tempo established in the SEC Championship Game and push to rush for over 700 yards against the 'Noles. Despite a talented 'Noles defensive line, led by future NFL players in Mario Edwards, Timmy Jergnigan and Eddie Goldman, the SEC coaching staff has indicated that it likes its chances to establish some push in the trenches. The SEC's offensive line, led by tackles Antonio Richardson and Cyrus Kouandjio, will look to set the tone early and keep pressure off of Manziel.
The SEC's defensive line, manned by defensive ends Jadeveon Clowney and Michael Sam, will look to get pressure on Heisman Trophy frontrunner Jameis Winston and prevent the 'Noles from establishing a ground game with Devonta Freeman, James Wilder or Karlos Williams. Linebackers CJ Mosley, Serderius Bryant and Ramik Wilson will be tasked to both stuff the run, should a Florida State running back be lucky enough to break the line of scrimmage, and provide coverage against passes across the middle and Florida State tight end Nick O'Leary. Florida State's stout receiving corps includes three receivers who are on the cusp of breaking the 1,000 receiving yard barrier this year. However, Rashad Greene, Kelvin Benjamin and Kenny Shaw may prove to be no match against the SEC's all-world secondary, led by safety Ha-Ha Clinton Dix. Florida State's offense, which sits 28 points shy of setting the new all-time NCAA record for most points scored in a single season, will have a tall task in putting enough points on the board to be competitive in this matchup. The 'Noles play in a clearly inferior conference and feature a much weaker strength of schedule. It is not likely that this prolific offense would've put up comparable numbers against defenses the likes of Mississippi State, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas A&M, LSU, Georgia or Vanderbilt.
SEC head coach Nick Saban has indicated that he will not be including a field goal kicker on his final travel roster to Pasadena, indicating that some past event has persuaded him not to trust kickers in big games any longer. Look for the SEC to go for two point conversion following every score.
The line is set at SEC -29.5, but Paul Finebaum and Clay Travis have both indicated that this line is clearly too low and have openly pushed for scrapping the BCS National Championship in lieu of a repeat Iron Bowl to decide the national champion.
Poor Aaron Murray. Most TD passes in conference history and he doesn't even get mentioned as Manziel's backup. :(
Quote from: Rasputin on December 09, 2013, 08:08:57 PM
Florida State faces huge challenge in defeating SEC in title game
:thumbsup: :lol:
Just be glad they do not get to field 154 players at a time.
I am irrationally annoyed Texas has not dumped Mack Brown yet. I was hoping he would just head back to North Carolina directly from Waco.
Mack is going to get an emeritus position similar to Carr, he won't be fired directly. At least I'd be surprised if that happened, my understanding is he generates enough value with politicking boosters that he would still have value on the payroll in a non-coaching role. And he did break something like a 40 year championship drought.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 09, 2013, 09:16:06 PM
Mack is going to get an emeritus position similar to Carr, he won't be fired directly. At least I'd be surprised if that happened, my understanding is he generates enough value with politicking boosters that he would still have value on the payroll in a non-coaching role. And he did break something like a 40 year championship drought.
Of course it is going to be done this way. I was kidding.
But considering how fast recruiting was falling apart it was setting up to be another 40 years if Texas left him there too much longer. Past time.
Well actually I have just decided to claim the 11 unclaimed championships on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Longhorns_football
Quote
Claimed national titles
4 (1963, 1969, 1970, 2005)
Unclaimed national titles
11 (1914, 1918, 1930, 1941, 1945, 1947, 1950, 1968, 1977, 1981, 2008)
So it was actuallly only 24 years. So there. 1981 is Texas' now Clemson.
I think Husky fans are excited about Petersen.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fseattletimes.com%2FABPub%2F2013%2F12%2F09%2F2022432338.jpg&hash=f05f199fda4b8df2c0dfce5b572d2b081312db14)
Mack Brown is going to step down as Coach at Texas. The Alamo Bowl will be his last game. He is going to step into a cushy job paying lots of money in the AD, the same one Darrell Royal held for 36 years.
Mack is the greatest UT coach in my lifetime and it will not be the same without him. Just a class act and amazing program builder and recruiter.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24371310/report-mack-brown-decision-likely-within-next-48-hours
Quote from: MackMack Brown has refuted a report that he has already reached a decision to step down as Texas's head coach.
"I'm in Florida recruiting," Brown said in a text message sent Tuesday to Horns247.com reporter Bobby Burton. "If I had decided to step down I sure wouldn't be killing myself down here. I have not decided to step down."
Just like Deloss Dodds did? Yeah.
Maybe he doesn't know yet. :ph34r:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 10, 2013, 03:42:01 PM
Maybe he doesn't know yet. :ph34r:
You mean this GIF might be more accurate than we think?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.com%2Fa%2Fimg547%2F2816%2Feaj.gif&hash=9aeafb2a799311bc00ba5ee13059beddd45eff85)
Edit: Oh and Mack on a Mobile: http://www.sports790.com/media/podcast-matt-thomas-podcast-mattthomas/mack-brown-on-a-mobile-121013-24074375/
I've found Texas's next coach, though they are going to have to out-bid the university of North Dakota for him.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/280064/ (http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/280064/)
Money quote:
Quote...then moved on to a Playstation gaming system and purchased NCAA Football every year and put together several programs that completely dominated the recruiting scene and college football winning several national titles with Marshall University. I took them from a decent Mid-American Conference School on the game to a perennial national power that makes Nick Saban look like a chump. One year my third string quarterback left school early to enter the NFL Draft, he was a first round pick. Boom.
here's the accompanying PowerPoint presentation: http://legacy.grandforksherald.com/pdfs/north-dakota.pdf (http://legacy.grandforksherald.com/pdfs/north-dakota.pdf)
He's got a great plan:
1. Recruit great players
2. Win a lot of games
3. Recruit more great players
4. Win more games
Sounds like a can't-miss hire to me.
Oh, Lord. Every Marshall person I know has posted that on Facebook, or even better-- emailed me about it.
Loved the .ppt, though. Wayne Fontes FTW.
Go Navy! Beat Army.
Quote from: lustindarkness on December 14, 2013, 03:33:43 PM
Go Navy! Beat Army.
It's unfathomable to me that anyone could support a bunch of guys who dress like they want to be House Boys to some rich gay guy.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 14, 2013, 04:08:31 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on December 14, 2013, 03:33:43 PM
Go Navy! Beat Army.
It's unfathomable to me that anyone could support a bunch of guys who dress like they want to be House Boys to some rich gay guy.
Some of them probably joined the army because of family tradition; others because they couldn't get into a better service. Unlike you, I don't hold their silly uniforms against them.
34-7
LHN is reporting that Mack has informed players and recruits that he will be stepping down after the bowl game.
And it's pile-on time!
QuoteHow Texas missed out on Jameis Winston: Longhorns missed 5 or 6 phone calls from his high school coach
Jameis WInston is the likely Heisman Trophy winner Saturday night, and as his success continues to grow, things get worse for Texas head coach Mack Brown.
Earlier this season ESPN's Brett McMurphy reported that Winston wanted to play for the Longhorns in high school.
"I'm an OU fan but I always wanted to go to Texas," Winston said to McMurphy. "If I'd gotten offer from Texas I'd be going to Texas right now"
Winston's high school coach, for his sophomore and junior seasons, Matt Scott handled Winston's recruiting process. Scott estimates he called Texas five or six times Winston's junior year. He even remembers speaking to a secretary on multiple occasions, according to AL.com.
"I told them I know you get these calls all the time but I said trust me on this one, you are going to want to relay this message," Scott recalled. "I told her I had left voice mails on all these assistant coaches' phones and never got a call back. I told her that this was a message she wanted to get out there to Coach (Mack) Brown."
The message didn't seem to go through.
Earlier in the year Brown said someone close to the program told him it was a "two-horse race" for Winston between Florida State and Alabama. Brown said if he had thought there was a chance to get Winston he would have tried.
Ultimately, Winston chose Florida State. The Seminoles are in the national title game next month and Brown is just fighting to keep his job.
And an interesting piece on Texas QB recruiting the past several years.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1769270-history-of-texas-longhorns-quarterbacks-post-colt-mccoy
Quote from: grumbler on December 13, 2013, 02:23:39 PM
I've found Texas's next coach, though they are going to have to out-bid the university of North Dakota for him.
I saw that. I like his innovative offensive strategy :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 14, 2013, 10:38:26 PM
And it's pile-on time!
What a silly article. But it is the bleacher report.
One of the hot names to be the next Texas Coach is Vandy's James Franklin.
Nice article by Scipio Tex here if you want to check it out MBM: http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2013/12/16/5216644/texas-longhorns-head-coach-search-the-james-franklin-problem
Not that my opinion matters, but I wouldn't be unhappy if they gave Franklin a shot.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 17, 2013, 02:19:03 PM
Not that my opinion matters, but I wouldn't be unhappy if they gave Franklin a shot.
It looks like David Shaw, the dude I wanted, is not going to leave Stanford. That's not unexpected.
My two top guys right now are Franklin and Chad Morris the Clemson OC. A lot of silence from Bellmont right now, I think Patterson is in full control of this thing. Easy to keep things under the lid with a one man search committee.
I hope they at least talk to Charlie Strong too.
Quote from: Valmy on December 17, 2013, 02:21:14 PM
My two top guys right now are Franklin and Chad Morris the Clemson OC.
You really think they'd give the job to a guy (Morris) with no HC experience and only 4 years' total college experience? That's be a pretty big gamble.
What's the rap on Briles? I would think him the logical choice.
He just signed a 10 year extension with Baylor and might not want to leave.
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2013, 02:42:35 PM
What's the rap on Briles? I would think him the logical choice.
He would be, but he just signed a big extension which tells me he doesn't want to leave Baylor. Besides it is generally frowned upon to hire in-conference.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 17, 2013, 02:44:12 PM
He just signed a 10 year extension with Baylor and might not want to leave.
Unless he just doesn't like UT (being a Texan, that's possible) I can't imagine money nor a lack of ambition stopping him from moving to UT. But I guess I can understand why money might make him a less desirable candidate from Texas's POV.
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2013, 02:42:35 PM
You really think they'd give the job to a guy (Morris) with no HC experience and only 4 years' total college experience? That's be a pretty big gamble.
I don't know if he would be considered. But he is a rising star and a Texas High School legend, I think with the right support he would be fabulous.
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2013, 02:54:11 PM
Unless he just doesn't like UT (being a Texan, that's possible) I can't imagine money nor a lack of ambition stopping him from moving to UT. But I guess I can understand why money might make him a less desirable candidate from Texas's POV.
I see no evidence he doesn't like UT, he always says very nice things about us. He doesn't have to do that believe me. I just figured he was signaling he was fine where he was. His age may also be a factor, he is almost 60.
Quote from: Valmy on December 17, 2013, 02:58:53 PM
His age may also be a factor, he is almost 60.
Ah. I hadn't noticed that. Everything starts to fall into place now that I know that. :thumbsup:
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2013, 03:03:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 17, 2013, 02:58:53 PM
His age may also be a factor, he is almost 60.
Ah. I hadn't noticed that. Everything starts to fall into place now that I know that. :thumbsup:
Are you being sarcastic dude? I just thought maybe at that age maybe he figures he has it going on at Baylor and can retire there without starting over someplace else.
While guys like Briles and Gundy are marvelous coaches, and UT would be lucky to have either one, I would rather they stay where they are. The Big 12 is a better conference with a strong Oklahoma State and Baylor.
They should get Todd Graham.
I didn't read sarcasm in grumbler's post. Isn't Briles the one who many years ago was caught saying Texas would be his dream job, as a football coach from Texas? But I think the reality is what you say, he's built up something at Baylor, isn't looking to coach for so much longer that it would make sense to engage in what will probably be a 3 year turnaround at best, possibly 4-5 year to get Texas to where its fans want it to be. That's also a high bar, I think a good coach can have Texas winning 10+ games again in 2 seasons or so, but oddly the guy they just pushed out the door has given Texas fans the feeling they should essentially win the conference every year, beat Oklahoma every year, and win/play for an NC more often than twice every 16 years.
I heard texas only won the Big XII twice under Mac Brown, is that true?
Quote from: sbr on December 17, 2013, 07:49:35 PM
I heard texas only won the Big XII twice under Mac Brown, is that true?
Yes, 2005 and 2009.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 17, 2013, 07:45:37 PM
but oddly the guy they just pushed out the door has given Texas fans the feeling they should essentially win the conference every year, beat Oklahoma every year, and win/play for an NC more often than twice every 16 years.
No one expects them to do all of that every year.
As noted, however, in 16 years, Mack's team only won the conference twice. That's not enough. Especially not when you are supposed to be one of the major powers in the conference. Oh and when your main rival does it 8 times in a shorter amount of time (Stoops started at OU in 99).
It's also important to be competitive with Oklahoma. Mack went 7-9 against them, which might not be too bad on it's own, until you consider that four of those losses were some of the worst ever for Texas against OU. 63-14, 65-13, 55-17, 63-21. Those are BAD beat downs.
The NCs were pretty great. No one complains about those, but most would probably like to at least be in the picture for the NC game later in the season a lot of the time, given the resources available to the program. It also would have been awesome if they won the second and went to the third, but Gideon dropped the pick and Earl Thomas and Curtis Brown couldn't shove a dude OOB.
E: Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what Mack has done. I remember the years before him. Texas was not very good at football, at least not consistently. Mack definitely turned that around and brought the Horns back from the dead. His teams just seem to underachieve at times, and recently it has just kind of seemed like he was done. He didn't want to be, but he might not really have "it" anymore. He seemed tired at times.
E2: An article about Mack by a guy who was at UT when he was hired: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10134500/the-end-era-mack-brown-texas-longhorns
Oh, Valmy, Jeffcoat and Fera are All Americans.
Quote from: Valmy on December 17, 2013, 03:10:05 PM
Are you being sarcastic dude?
Man, you Texas fans are super-touchy, aren't you? :lol:
QuoteI just thought maybe at that age maybe he figures he has it going on at Baylor and can retire there without starting over someplace else.
That's exactly what "fell into place" when you mentioned his age. He's got nothing to prove, and he's just reached the age where trying to stretch one's self isn't a high priority.
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2013, 09:07:47 PM
Man, you Texas fans are super-touchy, aren't you? :lol:
No I honestly didn't know.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 17, 2013, 07:45:37 PM
I think a good coach can have Texas winning 10+ games again in 2 seasons or so, but oddly the guy they just pushed out the door has given Texas fans the feeling they should essentially win the conference every year, beat Oklahoma every year, and win/play for an NC more often than twice every 16 years.
That would be weird since the guy Mack replaced won a conference title three times in six years and Mack only won two in sixteen. I really do not think Texas fans have this feeling at all (well ok some of us do but this particular part of the fanbase has felt this way since the late 70s at least). Granted we do not particularly like losing to Oklahoma by 40 when OU was not even that good and the team quit in the first half. It was just a matter that it was clear Mack was not going to get it turned around, the program was losing momentum and recruiting was dropping off. It was time for a change, not that we demand a national championship every year. Only the Auburn and Alabama fans demand that, and that clearly is not working out for them at all.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 17, 2013, 08:41:06 PM
Oh, Valmy, Jeffcoat and Fera are All Americans.
Yeah I saw that. Great season by those two guys and Cedric Reed. They will all be missed. It is amazing Manny Diaz found a way to be so bad with that defensive line.
Quote from: Valmy on December 17, 2013, 11:20:22 PM
That would be weird since the guy Mack replaced won a conference title three times in six years and Mack only won two in sixteen.
I still laugh when I think about that ridiculous 5 way tie that happened because A&M had been cheating. Even Rice got in on the action.
E: Wait. Rice just won their conference this year for the first time in.....was that tie the last time they had done that???
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 18, 2013, 08:49:42 AM
E: Wait. Rice just won their conference this year for the first time in.....was that tie the last time they had done that???
Yep. Same with Baylor this year. Texas Tech is the only one of the five legendary co-champs of 1994 to not win a conference title since.
For those who do not know what we are talking about here were the Southwest Conference Standings from 1994:
Team Conference Overall
#8 Texas A&M* 6 – 0 – 1 10 – 0 – 1
#25 Texas § 4 – 3 – 0 8 – 4 – 0
Baylor § 4 – 3 – 0 7 – 5 – 0
TCU § 4 – 3 – 0 7 – 5 – 0
Texas Tech § 4 – 3 – 0 6 – 6 – 0
Rice § 4 – 3 – 0 5 – 6 – 0
Houston 1 – 6 – 0 1 – 10 – 0
SMU 0 – 6 – 1 1 – 9 – 1
A&M was ineligible due to being on probation. Yes they did tie the last place team. Texas, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, and Rice were all co-champions. I remember on the last day of the season the Houston fans made a 'Conference runner-ups!' banner :lol:
Wyoming won a conference title sometime in the past.
I do agree Mack didn't win enough conference championships, but I'll also note that however many conference championships his predecessor won Texas was known as a weak giant for my entire life up until Mack and they certainly didn't win any national championships under his predecessor.
Judging from that list in Valmy's post above, conference championships in the SWC didn't have quite the cachet they do in the Big 12.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2013, 10:52:20 AM
Judging from that list in Valmy's post above, conference championships in the SWC didn't have quite the cachet they do in the Big 12.
Mackovic also won the Big 12 the first year in the conference.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 18, 2013, 10:56:18 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 18, 2013, 10:52:20 AM
Judging from that list in Valmy's post above, conference championships in the SWC didn't have quite the cachet they do in the Big 12.
Mackovic also won the Big 12 the first year in the conference.
With an 8-5 record, that's just luck in how the other teams fared to win the conference with a record like that. Brown had like 10-11 seasons with better records than that where he didn't win the conference.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 18, 2013, 11:12:46 AM
With an 8-5 record, that's just luck in how the other teams fared to win the conference with a record like that. Brown had like 10-11 seasons with better records than that where he didn't win the conference.
He lost two conference games. That team beat Nebraska in the CCG.
I'm not saying Mack wasn't done, I think the signs were all there. But I think it's similar to a Lloyd Carr type situation, I remember myself thinking Carr needed to go at Michigan and not being surprised when he stepped down and I feel the same way about Mack. But after the Rodriguez years and the Hoke years so far, I've looked back and realized (after actually looking at the real W-L record and not the perception) that even in his "down" years, Carr was a damn good football coach. I think similar can be said for Mack, and while I understand the fans that get upset they 'aren't in the hunt' at the end of the season as often as they would like to be guys like Mack Brown and Lloyd Carr aren't always easy to replace and sometimes you actually get a much worse replacement.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 18, 2013, 11:51:36 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 18, 2013, 11:12:46 AM
With an 8-5 record, that's just luck in how the other teams fared to win the conference with a record like that. Brown had like 10-11 seasons with better records than that where he didn't win the conference.
That team beat Nebraska in the CCG.
Right, but there are several years where 8-5 wouldn't get you in the conference championship game in the first place. The idea that Mackovic's 8-5 Big 12 championship season is somehow better than one of Mack's seasons where he won 10+ games and a big time bowl but didn't win the conference championship is asinine. It's indicative of people being stupid about how they are evaluating their coach. That same B12 championship team of Mackovic's got its ass ripped open by Penn State and a coach already well into senility. In 2004 Mack went 11-1, did not win the Big 12, and won the Rose Bowl. I'd take that over Mackovic's 8-5 Big 12 Championship season with a bowl game loss any day; you'd probably complain that Nick Saban lost to LSU and didn't win the SEC Championship the year he beat them in the NC? :D
It's worth noting a coach like Nick Saban who basically owns football is a once in a generation coach, Texas isn't going to get someone like that and whoever they do get probably won't beat Oklahoma 85% of the time or win the Big 12 every other season.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 18, 2013, 11:57:24 AM
Right, but there are several years where 8-5 wouldn't get you in the conference championship game in the first place. The idea that Mackovic's 8-5 Big 12 championship season is somehow better than one of Mack's seasons where he won 10+ games and a big time bowl but didn't win the conference championship is asinine. It's indicative of people being stupid about how they are evaluating their coach. That same B12 championship team of Mackovic's got its ass ripped open by Penn State and a coach already well into senility.
Okay. What you don't seem to understand is we aren't saying that 8-5 season is better than one of Mack's seasons or wahtever. We're saying that Mack only won the conference twice in his entire time there, despite having teams that are clearly very good.
QuoteIn 2004 Mack went 11-1, did not win the Big 12, and won the Rose Bowl. I'd take that over Mackovic's 8-5 Big 12 Championship season with a bowl game loss any day; you'd probably complain the Nick Saban lost to LSU and didn't win the SEC Championship the year he beat them in the NC? :D
No, probably not.
QuoteIt's worth noting a coach like Nick Saban who basically owns football is a once in a generation coach, Texas isn't going to get someone like that and whoever they do get probably won't beat Oklahoma 85% of the time or win the Big 12 every other season.
Thanks for noting that. I figured the new guy would just go 1.000 for the next 30 years and would just die on the sidelines after his 30th NC win, but since you pointed it out I've revised my expectations.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 18, 2013, 11:12:46 AM
With an 8-5 record, that's just luck in how the other teams fared to win the conference with a record like that. Brown had like 10-11 seasons with better records than that where he didn't win the conference.
Yep. It is a joke about Mack only won 2 while Mackovic won 3. Mackovic never had to play Bob Stoops.
That 1996 team that went 8-5 was the greatest five loss team in UT history. Three of their regular season losses were games they had won and just blew due to stupid mistakes, they blew double digit leads like they were going out of style. The exception was a hilarious and inexplicable collapse against Virginia where Tiki Barber gained about 300 yards.
I mean the 1996 team had both Priest Holmes and Ricky Williams in its backfield. It should have been Mackovic's best team, it should have gone 10-1. A team of legendary underachievement.
Hey they dropped 70 on Oklahoma State between horrific losses. :P
E: But yeah, that team only lost two conference games. It wasn't really luck that they got into the CCG. That was when the B12 North was good and the South was iffy.
Uh oh John Gruden is interested, according to reports.
Reports from Orangebloods.com, that is. :rolleyes:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 18, 2013, 01:09:39 PM
Reports from Orangebloods.com, that is. :rolleyes:
You mean the guys who reported Deloss Dodds would step down and then he did, and then reported Mack Brown would step down and then he did?
Man why should we put any stock into those guys? :P
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2013, 01:12:54 PM
You mean the guys who reported Deloss Dodds would step down and then he did, and then reported Mack Brown would step down and then he did?
Man why should we put any stock into those guys? :P
Psh. They report all sorts of shit.
We're #17!
Go Huskies! (http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45efmkf/17-washington-huskies/)
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 18, 2013, 01:26:22 PM
Psh. They report all sorts of shit.
They are one of very few people actually reporting on the athletic department and not just relaying press releases and attending press conferences so I take what I can get.
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2013, 01:28:20 PM
They are one of very few people actually reporting on the athletic department and not just relaying press releases and attending press conferences so I take what I can get.
Go with Jesus Shuttlesworth for all your news. :D
Quote from: katmai on December 18, 2013, 01:26:41 PM
We're #17!
Go Huskies! (http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45efmkf/17-washington-huskies/)
You never commented on that pic of the Petersen press conference :P
At least this means Petersen's name will not be mentioned over and over again for every open job.
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2013, 01:32:19 PM
Quote from: katmai on December 18, 2013, 01:26:41 PM
We're #17!
Go Huskies! (http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45efmkf/17-washington-huskies/)
You never commented on that pic of the Petersen press conference :P
At least this means Petersen's name will not be mentioned over and over again for every open job.
Didn't realize i was suppose to. Had already seen the pic before :P
Oh and Texas was numero uno in that forbes report.
Quote from: katmai on December 18, 2013, 01:33:34 PM
Oh and Texas was numero uno in that forbes report.
Yeah one of big things Mack did for Texas was make them money national champs. It is hard to believe when he was hired Texas was passing around the hat for stadium renovations. They could easily fund that themselves now.
So...are you as excited about Petersen as the shirtless guys?
Hey Valmy speaking of.......non-conventional......news outlets, Barking Carnival has a thing about selecting coaches.
http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2013/11/27/5147044/find-a-coach-by-the-numbers-part-ii#comments
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2013, 01:37:34 PM
So...are you as excited about Petersen as the shirtless guys?
Probably not that excited.
If he can keep Wilcox and Lupoi I'd be estatic, and curious to see how he recruits, as it stands now UW has the smallest recruiting class of the BCS schools with like only 7 commits.
I think John Gruden would be a fantastic college coach. His biggest liability seems to be that he is so gung-ho and over the top that grown men eventually tune him out, that wouldn't be a problem with 18-21 year old kids who are only around for 4-5 years.
Quote from: sbr on December 18, 2013, 03:36:23 PM
I think John Gruden would be a fantastic college coach. His biggest liability seems to be that he is so gung-ho and over the top that grown men eventually tune him out, that wouldn't be a problem with 18-21 year old kids who are only around for 4-5 years.
Well obviously if a guy like him wants the job he will be a frontrunner. It is just he gets mentioned for every open job so it is hard to take it seriously.
I think he'd be fine as a football coach, but the big unknown with a purely NFL guy is recruiting.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 18, 2013, 05:00:07 PM
I think he'd be fine as a football coach, but the big unknown with a purely NFL guy is recruiting.
I don't think this would be a problem for him, he is a TV personality. However:
1. Most of the legwork is done by assistants anyway
2. The chances he actually ends up here are pretty slim. I would be amazed if he ever coaches again.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 18, 2013, 05:00:07 PM
I think he'd be fine as a football coach, but the big unknown with a purely NFL guy is recruiting.
Pete Carroll and Jim Harbaugh did pretty well.
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2013, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 18, 2013, 05:00:07 PM
I think he'd be fine as a football coach, but the big unknown with a purely NFL guy is recruiting.
I don't think this would be a problem for him, he is a TV personality. However:
1. Most of the legwork is done by assistants anyway
2. The chances he actually ends up here are pretty slim. I would be amazed if he ever coaches again.
I thought his MNF gig would be a one year and out deal, I didn't see him staying away. There longer he is out, the more surprised if he goes back.
Are there precedents of guys stepping out of the booth (after coaching) to coach?
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2013, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 18, 2013, 05:00:07 PM
I think he'd be fine as a football coach, but the big unknown with a purely NFL guy is recruiting.
I don't think this would be a problem for him, he is a TV personality. However:
1. Most of the legwork is done by assistants anyway
2. The chances he actually ends up here are pretty slim. I would be amazed if he ever coaches again.
It's not that I don't think he'd be good at it or something, it's whether or not he ends up having the patience for it. Same thing with a guy like Kubiak. Dude could probably do pretty well W/L-wise at the college level, but he doesn't seem like the type to put up with
college high school kid bullshit. I personally think Gruden would do just fine, but you never know.
E: Not college, high school.
E2: Actually, I'd be really interested to see how Kubiak's O would work in college. Oh well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 18, 2013, 05:19:13 PM
Are there precedents of guys stepping out of the booth (after coaching) to coach?
Urban Meyer? :P
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2013, 05:06:58 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 18, 2013, 05:00:07 PM
I think he'd be fine as a football coach, but the big unknown with a purely NFL guy is recruiting.
I don't think this would be a problem for him, he is a TV personality. However:
1. Most of the legwork is done by assistants anyway
2. The chances he actually ends up here are pretty slim. I would be amazed if he ever coaches again.
A lot of the legwork gets done by the assistants, but the HC has to be a closer.
As for Yi's question, there have been lots of guy who spent a year or 2 in broadcasting and then went back to coaching. I don't recall offhand anyone spending a long time on the tube and then going back to the sidelines, but there may be someone.
LOL Grudemonium 2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovrPXMm3LQ
Where Texas fans will be in a few weeks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQfYUKCT7hc
Washington State just gave up 18 points in 3ish minutes to lose their first bowl game in...a while...to Colorado State.
"They Coug'ed it" has been a real saying in these parts for a long time now. :D
I refuse to acknowledge Colorado State.
Too bad about Fresno sucking the big wahini, SDSU still has time to fuck up the Boise Bowl of Shit.
Hard to believe the LSU Iowa line is only 8.5. That's gotta be a two touchdown game.
I sure hope it is a higher score than 14-0
They scored 41 against the mighty Georgia D.
In announcing the hiring of Jeff Monken, Army AD Boo Corrigan said:
Quote''We want a successful head coach who understands the challenges of working at a service academy, one who could help us win immediately, and one who understands the importance of West Point's mission.
'Cause otherwise, we would have thought they wanted an unsuccessful HC with no idea of the challanges of working at a service academy, who won't get anything positive accomplished for at least a decade, and with no clue about the importance of the academy's mission.
Michigan State suspends LB Max Bullough for Rose Bowl:
http://www.freep.com/article/20131226/SPORTS07/312260059/ (http://www.freep.com/article/20131226/SPORTS07/312260059/)
Urban Meyer would have suspended him the first two games of next season. This is why Michigan State never succeeds.
Maryland loses its bowl game, showing it might be a good fit for the Big 10 after all.
I totally dug Marylands uniforms. All white=the shit. Those helmets were super slick.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 27, 2013, 06:41:12 PM
Maryland loses its bowl game, showing it might be a good fit for the Big 10 after all.
Maryland and Rutgers are going to fit in just fine.
:lmfao: The GT - Ole Miss game has been a special teams disaster and it fuckin rules
E: Up until this game, I had never seen a 20ish yard FG attempt bounce straight down off the bottom of the crossbar. And untouched kickers fall on their face for 1 yard losses on a fake punt all the time, right?
E2: Lame. They didn't attempt a 40 yard FG to end the first half.
Wyoming QB is declaring for the draft as a Junior. I can't see him going before the 4th round...
Oh well. Valmy it is time to reload and play Texas again.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFGVHuhp.gif&hash=598f06f3d96d75905e065f9227d21bc8222a2f41)
:)
:lmfao:
Not a good year for punters.
Well Case certainly started out wrong. Nice pick 6.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 30, 2013, 06:57:30 PM
Well Case certainly started out wrong. Nice pick 6.
Another one came later.
The Horns D gave up 16 points, including only one touchdown. They lost by 23.
Needless to say when the Big Book of Mack is written that game will not be the last chapter. Talk about a wimper.
I was afraid the Ducks were going to get smoked yesterday. It felt like the classic one team doesn't want to be there, other team has motivation to get the win game.
The Ducks showed up to play, which you can't always assume will happen with 18-20 year old kids who until 6 weeks ago figured they would be playing for the national championship.
Oh yeah, and Texas' offense is dreadfull.
I think getting spanked by Arizona did them a solid. Otherwise their "letdown" game could have come against a woeful Texas team on a much more national stage.
Getting punked by a solidly average Arizona team made them realize that while not playing for the national title they thought they would play for sucks, losing badly to teams they are much better than sucks even more.
Quote from: Berkut on December 31, 2013, 10:13:29 AM
I think getting spanked by Arizona did them a solid. Otherwise their "letdown" game could have come against a woeful Texas team on a much more national stage.
Getting punked by a solidly average Arizona team made them realize that while not playing for the national title they thought they would play for sucks, losing badly to teams they are much better than sucks even more.
Yeah based on yesterday's result it looks like that is what happened. It could have gone another way though.
YEAH!! WE'RE PLAYING FOR THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP!!
*get blownout by Stanford*
Well at least there is still the Rose Bowl!!
*get whacked by Arizona*
WTF, San Antonio on Dec 30th? When is spring beak again?
Quote from: sbr on December 31, 2013, 10:07:02 AM
I was afraid the Ducks were going to get smoked yesterday. It felt like the classic one team doesn't want to be there, other team has motivation to get the win game.
The Ducks showed up to play, which you can't always assume will happen with 18-20 year old kids who until 6 weeks ago figured they would be playing for the national championship.
Oh yeah, and Texas' offense is dreadfull.
Well I was thinking that Texas would be smoked. There was some thought that maybe everybody would rally and win one for the gipper but the reports coming out of practice were not good. Mack didn't really want to be there, the assistant coaches were distracted, the players were demoralized. You certainly didn't see evidence of that from GERG's group last night though, Robinson was clearly coaching his tail off. But beyond that I think everybody saw the things that made the Texas fan base think it was time for the end of the Mack era. Max Olson from ESPN summed it up I thought:
QuoteA once-great program that now has no on-field identity and few discernable advantages lost to a powerhouse. This, quite simply, was why Brown's time is finished.
Though if I am an Oregon fan I am worried about this new regime, that team looks undisciplined. I left wondering if they would be able to overcome the loss of Chip Kelly in the longterm, at least so far their status as a national powerhouse.
Quote from: Valmy on December 31, 2013, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: sbr on December 31, 2013, 10:07:02 AM
I was afraid the Ducks were going to get smoked yesterday. It felt like the classic one team doesn't want to be there, other team has motivation to get the win game.
The Ducks showed up to play, which you can't always assume will happen with 18-20 year old kids who until 6 weeks ago figured they would be playing for the national championship.
Oh yeah, and Texas' offense is dreadfull.
Well I was thinking that Texas would be smoked. There was some thought that maybe everybody would rally and win one for the gipper but the reports coming out of practice were not good. Mack didn't really want to be there, the assistant coaches were distracted, the players were demoralized. You certainly didn't see evidence of that from GERG's group last night though, Robinson was clearly coaching his tail off. But beyond that I think everybody saw the things that made the Texas fan base think it was time for the end of the Mack era. Max Olson from ESPN summed it up I thought:
QuoteA once-great program that now has no on-field identity and few discernable advantages lost to a powerhouse. This, quite simply, was why Brown's time is finished.
Though if I am an Oregon fan I am worried about this new regime, that team looks undisciplined. I left wondering if they would be able to overcome the loss of Chip Kelly in the longterm, at least so far their status as a national powerhouse.
I had the game on TV while I was doing other stuff but wasn't really watching the whole thing. What made them look undisciplined? Penalties or something else? I do follow a bunch of people who cover the team on Twitter and don't remember any of them saying anything about it.
As for the second part, I think you are right. They have been slowly trending upwards since the early '90s but I always thought their ceiling was being in the running for the Rose Bowl every year. I don't think Oregon has the recruiting base to be a perennial Top 10, BCS team. They have always recruited well in California, and have made some nice inroads into Texas in the last decade, but there is a serious lack of home grown talent. 5 star kids are very rare, and even 4 stars aren't falling off of trees up here; I don't think you can consistently be at that level when you are relying on pulling talent out of other schools' backyard. I was going to say unless you are a "national" program like Notre Dame, but they can't do it either.
Coaching can help make up for a talent gap (more so in college football than any other sport?), and Chip Kelly is pretty clearly a very good, or better, football coach. Mark Helfrich could be the second best football coach in Oregon history and the program would still likely take a step back. I don't know how much the coach or staff had to do with the loss at Arizona this year, but I think you have to assume that it was something. Maybe they lose that game even if Kelly was still here, but outside of the Boise State game in his very first game, Kelly never lost a game he "should have" won (of course he didn't win many he "should have" lost either). Maybe that Arizona game would have been the one, but obviously we will never know.
Another big part in Oregon's success has been the ridiculous stability in their assistant coach staff; outside of the OC (which is a 2-3 year max tenure around here) everyone else has been around for 20+ years and through 3-4 head coaching regimes. Now I think we may be coming to the end of that. DC Nick Aliotti is retiring after last night, OC Scott Frost may leave this off season; if not he will almost surely be gone next, unless the Ducks fall off a cliff next year which I can't see happening with Mariota back and healthy. I think some of the other "old timers" may start leaving in the next couple of years also.
That brings up the next worry, is Oregon able and willing to pay the new going rate on top tier coordinators? Aliotti made just over $400K this year; Frost is young and new but only made $367K. Oregon and Uncle Phil have shown they have no problems with large one off cash drops for new facilities and upgrades, but there is some worry around here that they might not be interested in paying close to a million a year each for top level coordinators.
Oregon has a lot of "resources", a very nice head start in the facilities arms race and a pretty decent commitment from the current administration but I don't know if all of that is enough to overcome the inherent disadvantages over time. I mentioned recruiting, there is also the problem of the school being in Eugene Oregon; some kids like getting away to a small town in the "middle of nowhere" but I would guess far more would be turned off by it. Autzen Stadium is smallish and I don't know how much more they can add to it.
The craziest thing to me is the level of expectation and by fans around here. 13 years ago the Ducks beat Texas in the Holiday Bowl. That was Oregon's first ever 10 win season. Now people are going insane because the Ducks didn't make it to a 5th straight BCS game. They wanted the coaching staff fired immediately after the Arizona game; there were people who were upset when Mariota said he was coming back, like he was a problem; they acted like a 10-2 season and a good bowl game was the worst thing that ever happened to them.
I was around for the horrible years in the late '70 and through the '80s. A 10 win season is still pretty fun for me. It has been a very fun ride the last 5-6 years and I hope it continues, but I really am not expecting it to continue at that level.
Quote from: sbr on December 31, 2013, 11:31:02 AM
Oregon has a lot of "resources", a very nice head start in the facilities arms race and a pretty decent commitment from the current administration but I don't know if all of that is enough to overcome the inherent disadvantages over time. I mentioned recruiting, there is also the problem of the school being in Eugene Oregon; some kids like getting away to a small town in the "middle of nowhere" but I would guess far more would be turned off by it. Autzen Stadium is smallish and I don't know how much more they can add to it.
That can easily be overcome if you know what you're doing when recruiting. If there are 6 top prospects at a given position you're looking at, and 3 of them want to play at a school in a big-city setting, 1 wants to play on the East Coast, 1 wants to play in a college town type setting, and one doesnt care about any of that but just wants to play for a good program, if you're Oregon, obviously you target the last 2 guys and don't waste your time on the first 4.
I'm curious of any of you football factory guys ever met a "recruiting hostess."
You sometimes see those tours going around the Woody Hayes Center. They like to show off all the Heismans and memorabilia to the high school jocks. I always assumed those were students doing work-study. I was so naive back then.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 31, 2013, 09:32:02 PM
I'm curious of any of you football factory guys ever met a "recruiting hostess."
I was one...
To be fair, some of the ones I saw back then were probably not as pretty as Berkut...
Really liking the Rose Bowl so far.
Anybody here watch the Chick-fil-A Bowl?
The highlights looked great.
Sparty finally got themselves another Rose Bowl W.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 01, 2014, 08:53:16 PM
Sparty finally got themselves another Rose Bowl W.
The Big 10 is 2-4 in bowls at this point, and it feels as though they are doing well. The previous decade has really done wonders for Big 10 expectation management.
That is about the only Pac-12 bowl result that surprises me, actually. I thought Stanford would handle MSU handily - was thinking something like 28-18 or so.
Quote from: Berkut on January 01, 2014, 10:38:26 PM
That is about the only Pac-12 bowl result that surprises me, actually. I thought Stanford would handle MSU handily - was thinking something like 28-18 or so.
I think Stanford has been overrated all year. They match up really well with Oregon, but besides that game they haven't been so impressive. I think David Shaw is way too conservative. My guess is that Stanford's run at the top tier of the Pac 12 will be over after next year, if not after this year.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 01, 2014, 10:46:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 01, 2014, 10:38:26 PM
That is about the only Pac-12 bowl result that surprises me, actually. I thought Stanford would handle MSU handily - was thinking something like 28-18 or so.
I think Stanford has been overrated all year. They match up really well with Oregon, but besides that game they haven't been so impressive. I think David Shaw is way too conservative. My guess is that Stanford's run at the top tier of the Pac 12 will be over after next year, if not after this year.
You may very well be right - they are a physical team who does really well matching up against athletic teams, but apparently not so well when matched up against other physical teams.
They can dish it out, but they can't take it?
Looks like Baylor might not pull this off..
Quote from: Berkut on January 01, 2014, 10:49:09 PM
You may very well be right
It's more likely he's underrating their opponents.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 01, 2014, 11:56:06 PM
Looks like Baylor might not pull this off..
I hope UCF holds on...my brother went there and might be their biggest fan...for 10 years he has been obsessed with getting in a BCS conference, and they finally do...but just for this one year. If they lose this game, what can they do? Hang a banner that "AAC champs"? No one would really care. Fiesta Bowl winners would mean something.
Baylor can at least take pride in winning the Big 12.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 01, 2014, 11:57:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 01, 2014, 10:49:09 PM
You may very well be right
It's more likely he's underrating their opponents.
:huh:
I'm not saying they aren't good. But they were supposedly a top 5 team. They lost to a Utah team that didn't make a bowl and a 4 loss USC team.
Toss out the Oregon game, and what game makes you step back and go, "yep, that is a top 5 team"?
I leave for pasadena at noon tomorrow...aar to follow
I'm glad to see a Spartan victory. I thought they were going to win after every sports writer in the Detroit Free Press picked Stanford.
I thought the Baylor-UCF game looked a lot more like a Division-2 game then a BCF Bowl. All the local news stations went nuts over the UCF win.
Baylor played like they had taken a month off or something. Needless to say everybody was pretty disappointed by how badly they played. Art Briles publicly apologized. That was a new one.
I wasn't. :D
I hope Alabama takes out all their anger and rage about missing the NC game on the Dirt Burglars tonight. It'd be a bummer if they came out flat or just decided they didn't want to really be there and Stoops got a BCS win.
OSU Beaver and Biletnikoff winner Brandin Cooks declared for the draft today.
Apparently he opened his press conference with an all time great line:
"I'll always be a beaver until the day I die. I'll always drink that beaver juice no matter where I'm at." (https://twitter.com/BrandonSprague/status/418879537447854080)
This would be a perfect time to be having the BCS games in outdoor stadiums up north. <_<
Did you see that Wings-Leafs game they had in Ann Arbor? So awesome.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf%2Fimage_606w%2F2010-2019%2FWires%2FOnline%2F2014-01-01%2FAP%2FImages%2FWinter%2520Classic%2520Maple%2520Leafs%2520Red%2520Wings%2520Hockey.JPEG-0c261.jpg&hash=06df7af05406925b8c3b457300b5bcdb70254d79)
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 02, 2014, 05:58:23 PM
I hope Alabama takes out all their anger and rage about missing the NC game on the Dirt Burglars tonight. It'd be a bummer if they came out flat or just decided they didn't want to really be there and Stoops got a BCS win.
Dirt Burglars?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 02, 2014, 10:05:42 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 02, 2014, 05:58:23 PM
I hope Alabama takes out all their anger and rage about missing the NC game on the Dirt Burglars tonight. It'd be a bummer if they came out flat or just decided they didn't want to really be there and Stoops got a BCS win.
Dirt Burglars?
Sooners just a bunch of durrty land thieves, Cletus.
48 points at half time. This sucks. They should be out in the snow. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 02, 2014, 10:17:48 PM
48 points at half time. This sucks. They should be out in the snow. :P
Football scores are approaching basketball in some cases. And this is with the clock rule changes from a few years ago shortening the games. It is past time to evaluate whether all the offensive favorable rule changes need to be balanced a bit.
See all these kids and their high school marching bands on the field. My school did that. I went to a bowl game every year in HS. You have to win marching band contests to get there though.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 02, 2014, 10:26:04 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 02, 2014, 10:17:48 PM
48 points at half time. This sucks. They should be out in the snow. :P
Football scores are approaching basketball in some cases. And this is with the clock rule changes from a few years ago shortening the games. It is past time to evaluate whether all the offensive favorable rule changes need to be balanced a bit.
Duke football score more in the first half than the basketball team the day of their bowl game. 38 vs 36
Well that was unexpected.
Way to get lit up, Alabama.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 02, 2014, 10:05:42 PM
Dirt Burglars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sooners
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPojG4XpLAY
SEC fan is best fan :lol:
Quote from: sbr on January 03, 2014, 03:16:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPojG4XpLAY
SEC fan is best fan :lol:
Awesome, great song too. :)
Man bad year for Bama fan. That Sooner better be lucky she didn't kill him like that lady after the Iron Bowl.
No tree is safe with that lot around.
National Anthem girl is a cutie.
It would be nice to see an OSU win; but I'd consider it a moral victory if Urban Meyer doesn't sock any of the Clemson players. I know how these Ohio State coaches get.
Quote from: Savonarola on January 03, 2014, 08:46:37 PM
It would be nice to see an OSU win; but I'd consider it a moral victory if Urban Meyer doesn't sock any of the Clemson players. I know how these Ohio State coaches get.
:lol:
Actually, with Urban Meyer, it is more likely that if his team gets down by a lot, he will fake another heart attack to get out of there early.
What's the deal on "Urban" as a first name? Ethnic? Hungarian? Or is it a southern thing?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 03, 2014, 08:51:57 PM
What's the deal on "Urban" as a first name? Ethnic? Hungarian? Or is it a southern thing?
Catholic. Named after a pope.
Asoka
That, along with him saying Notre Dame was his dream job, is why Notre Dame was convinced they would get him when they canned Ty Willingham in 2005. I was at ND at the time, and one of my profs incorporated an Urban Meyer reference into every question on the final.
And then he went to Florida, because apparently Florida weather and recruiting trumps being good in the 1920s and Michiana, so ND hired Charlie Weis for a gazillion dollars.
Yeah then they paid him again to get him to leave. :P
Taunting penalty is such bullshit.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 03, 2014, 09:02:48 PM
Yeah then they paid him again to get him to leave. :P
I'm not sure how true they were (because ND is private and doesn't release salary info like public schools), but there were stories saying that last year Charlie Weis was being paid more not to coach than Brian Kelly was being paid to coach.
If true, it makes sense to me....Kelly is doing a good job, but I think it is more impactful to not have Weis around anymore.
Clemson's been gunning for Braxton's throwing arm since the 2nd half started.
Looks like it is going to be Charlie Strong at Texas. He is that guy everybody said should have a shot at a major program and it looks like he will have it. Solid track record of success over decades of coaching, tough defensive type dude who still will run the spread offense. No Texas ties for recruiting but a good hire, if it ends up happening, I think.
Lol, that wasn't a real interception.
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2014, 12:11:19 AM
No Texas ties for recruiting but a good hire, if it ends up happening, I think.
:yes: Same here. I like it.
Whoa, epic fuckup by Urban Meyer at the end.
After the unsportsmanlike penalty when clemson was taking a knee, the clock stopped. There were about 30 seconds left, it was 2nd and 28, and OSU had 2 timeouts. But Meyer didn't start taking timeouts. They should have gotten the ball back. Granted, it was still a longshot, but you have to take the timeouts there.
It was a worse fuckup not subbing in Guiton for the last drive. Miller was just too noddle-armed from all those helmet shots. I think Meyer just gave up or something.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 04, 2014, 12:20:13 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2014, 12:11:19 AM
No Texas ties for recruiting but a good hire, if it ends up happening, I think.
:yes: Same here. I like it.
LSUfreak is already on it:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.com%2Fa%2Fimg11%2F2139%2Fxcsc.gif&hash=35777e737f19a3e2b07c0ab8e1da16fe7101cccd)
:lol: The Head Coach is a
LSUfreek is pretty great.
Also:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BdPnH7NCEAAgZcA.jpg)
:punk:
I wonder if this is a good fit...Strong is a good coach, but his ties are so Florida oriented (even at Louisville he focused on recruiting Florida). He isn't a great public speaker, and the UT fanbase doesn't know him.
UF seems to be the perfect fit, and it almost came open this year.
From what I've read the ridiculous media responsibilities down at Texas may be a problem for him.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/texas-longhorns/20140105-national-reaction-texas-new-coach-charlie-strong-a-recluse-misfit-could-be-miserable.ece
Quote from: alfred russel on January 05, 2014, 11:05:10 PM
I wonder if this is a good fit...Strong is a good coach, but his ties are so Florida oriented (even at Louisville he focused on recruiting Florida). He isn't a great public speaker, and the UT fanbase doesn't know him.
If you're a good enough recruiter to be able to talk Florida kids into going to Louisville, I'm sure you're good enough to be able to talk Texas kids into going to UT.
Quote from: dps on January 05, 2014, 11:28:38 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 05, 2014, 11:05:10 PM
I wonder if this is a good fit...Strong is a good coach, but his ties are so Florida oriented (even at Louisville he focused on recruiting Florida). He isn't a great public speaker, and the UT fanbase doesn't know him.
If you're a good enough recruiter to be able to talk Florida kids into going to Louisville, I'm sure you're good enough to be able to talk Texas kids into going to UT.
Outside of the year Miami fired Shannon, he hardly pulled anyone out of Florida that the Big 3 were after (that 1 year was big though--he flipped Bridgewater from Miami to Louisville).
He is a good recruiter, but keep in mind he was a Florida coach for a long, long time. He had relationships with the high school coaches and administrators going back a ways. The year Bridgewater came out of high school, you had an unknown guy from Pennsylvania coming in to coach Miami, and a somewhat unknown guy from Texas coming in to coach UF. Jimbo Fisher had only been in Tallahassee one year.
He wasn't just a smooth talking guy from Louisville randomly pulling guys to Kentucky - at the time he had a relationship and credibility edge over the in state coaches.
The 'fit' is fine. The head coach doesn't need to have spent his career in Texas to be successful at Texas. I don't get why that would even be a thing, considering who Strong is replacing. The closest Mack got to Texas was a couple years in Oklahoma and Louisiana. They hired him from UNC.
And what are the 'ridiculous media responsibilities' that Strong is going to have to take on? Just because Mack Brown liked that shit (and was very good at it) doesn't mean Charlie Strong is going to have to do exactly the same thing. Pat Forde is butthurt about this, and the Fox guy seems retarded. The Forbes dude might be on to something though. Strong (and Patterson) is going to have to deal with Mack's big money buddies, and some of them might be a pita when they don't get the access or input they may have had in the past. It was something the next guy was going to have to deal with regardless.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2014, 11:22:54 PM
From what I've read the ridiculous media responsibilities down at Texas may be a problem for him.
That is a bunch of nonsense. The ridiculous media responsibilities were entirely a creation of Mack Brown, that was his strength, but it is not like every single coach we have ever had has been a Mack Brown clone or that every single one going forward must be. It is just when you have one dude in a job for sixteen years he becomes really identified with it. The Dallas Morning News is not the first one to point out this issue but I think it is more a Mack Brown thing than a Texas thing. John Mackovic, David McWilliams, Fred Akers, and Darrell Royal were not guys known for being particularly great with the media.
Some noise about Louisville going after RichRod.
That would seem to be a pretty lateral move for him, but Louisville could probably throw him a pretty large pile of cash.
If nothing else, I am guessing this will result in a nice raise for him and his staff at Arizona...
I wonder if they might seriously consider inviting Bobby Petrino back.
Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2014, 09:57:31 AM
I wonder if they might seriously consider inviting Bobby Petrino back.
Will he bring the blonde he was banging?
Hey Rasputin, someone needs to teach those Noles LB's how to play.
LBs?
What part of the offense are those?
:P
Quote from: katmai on January 06, 2014, 09:28:12 PM
Hey Rasputin, someone needs to teach those Noles LB's how to play.
Auburn seems to be doing that. But let me not get too excited, still a lot of football to play. ;)
Fucking Noles. :bleeding:
ACC is teh Sux.
FSU hanging in there with some special teams luck.
The downside being that now their defense has to come back on the field.
And tackling lessons too.
This game is bananas.
That interference penalty could be the game.
The spell is broken. :)
Great game, and season. War Eagle!
Rape - 34, SEC - 31.
Wow. On way to lax to return. Amazing game. Amazing stadium. Aar to follow
I am now a FSU fan.
Congrats to FSU and Rasputin. Finally a really good BCS title game. Seems like they have all been pretty terrible with perhaps the exception of Oregon-Auburn ever since the VinceBowl.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVhlWsii.png&hash=e6216a930234513a47ec351edd1964b542a98afc)
BCS era is now over after 16 years.
The records by conference (based on where current teams play):
SEC: 9-2
ACC: 3-4
BIG 12: 2-4
Pac 12: 1-2 (0-2 officially)
BIG 10: 1-3
Ind: 0-1
Excluding the national title by Ohio State, the most northern team to win the BCS championship game was Tennessee.
Hopefully the Big 12 will fare a bit better in the playoff era.
God, I hate the SEC.
I am perfectly willing to admit this is based on nothing more than hating that they've won the meta game of college football.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 11:47:37 AM
God, I hate the SEC.
I am perfectly willing to admit this is based on nothing more than hating that they've won the meta game of college football.
If you are a fan of another school in another conference and DON'T hate the SEC then there is something wrong with you.
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2014, 10:55:32 AM
Hopefully the Big 12 will fare a bit better in the playoff era.
I think playoffs will give other conferences a better chance, but fundamentally the SEC has a huge geographic recruiting advantage, coupled with excellent leadership/management dedicated to winning at any and all costs. They understand that NCAA "rules" are nothing more than variables of the game, and not anything to respect in and of themselves. And they are very, very good at it. They've made their system work at generating just insane amounts of money they can then feed back into their carefully managed system to continue to dominate the overall system.
That is going to be very hard to overcome for anyone on a consistent basis.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 11:51:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2014, 10:55:32 AM
Hopefully the Big 12 will fare a bit better in the playoff era.
I think playoffs will give other conferences a better chance, but fundamentally the SEC has a huge geographic recruiting advantage, coupled with excellent leadership/management dedicated to winning at any and all costs. They understand that NCAA "rules" are nothing more than variables of the game, and not anything to respect in and of themselves. And they are very, very good at it. They've made their system work at generating just insane amounts of money they can then feed back into their carefully managed system to continue to dominate the overall system.
That is going to be very hard to overcome for anyone on a consistent basis.
The talent in the country is concentrated in the south / Texas, and southern california. I think schools like Miami, FSU, Texas, USC, and UCLA are positioned as well as anyone in the SEC. What really helps the SEC is that the money and focus on winning gives schools like Auburn (the second team in a smallish state) a shot to compete nationally.
What helps the sec is the passion of their fan base is so high that their mid tier schools still pack a stadium get on tv and are able to use both as a recruiting advantage. The winning causes their boosters to donate more money to the programs which in turn builds better facilities which in turn attracts recruits. It creates a cycle of winning that's tough to compete against.
My hunch is boosters who are comfortable with moral ambiguity is another SEC advantage.
Quote from: Rasputin on January 07, 2014, 02:45:52 PM
What helps the sec is the passion of their fan base is so high that their mid tier schools still pack a stadium get on tv and are able to use both as a recruiting advantage. The winning causes their boosters to donate more money to the programs which in turn builds better facilities which in turn attracts recruits. It creates a cycle of winning that's tough to compete against.
Eh the Mid Tier Big 10 schools pack their stadiums and it does not give them much of a recruiting advantage. It gives them lots of money though so at least their terrible teams get to enjoy top notch facilities.
The recruiting advantage is they are sitting in a sports and football mad part of the country the produces absurd amounts of top players per capita. No amount of passion is going to give Minnesota great recruits.
Quote from: Rasputin on January 07, 2014, 02:45:52 PM
What helps the sec is the passion of their fan base is so high that their mid tier schools still pack a stadium get on tv and are able to use both as a recruiting advantage. The winning causes their boosters to donate more money to the programs which in turn builds better facilities which in turn attracts recruits. It creates a cycle of winning that's tough to compete against.
That doesn't explain their success at all. That explains why they are one of a few top tier conferences.
They win out over conferences like the Big-10 because they couple all that (what you said above, but what is not fundamentally a unique attribute of the SEC) with a conference level coordination of playing the meta-college football game.
They understand how the system works at the conference level to make sure they get multiple BCS bids, so that the teams that are not going to ever make a BCS bowl still get paid, and hence are happy providing the W's to the designated power teams.
They aren't much concerned with NCAA rules, except insofar as properly balancing risk/reward so to make sure that there isn't too much damage if and when they are caught...and they don't get caught much. But they certainly understand that there is and should be zero consideration actually given to those rules and the intent behind them.
They structure their schedules around making sure they get their top teams the magic number of wins to ensure they always get more than a reasonable share of bowl games.
And they've been doing all this for long enough, and successfully enough, that they've leveraged that advantage to a position that is not challengeable, even by other conferences with rabid fan bases as well. And of course, the loyalty of the fan base is driven and reinforced by that very same success, so it is a very well handled positive feedback loop.
Of course, SEC fans will want to claim that their success is really just because they are better at the things that we all recognize as being "proper" drivers of success - fan motivation, great coaching, etc., etc. But those things cannot possibly explain the level of success of the SEC, unless you assume that the SEC has a commensurately higher level of those things that apparently everyone else in the country lacks. If that were actually the case, that the only real fans of college football are in the SEC, then college football in general would not be the nationally popular sport that it is - it would just be a southern thing.
No, the success of the SEC over the last decade or so has been driven by outstanding management and understanding of how to manipulate the system of NCAA football. And it has almost nothing to do with extra super rabid fans.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2014, 02:48:00 PM
My hunch is boosters who are comfortable with moral ambiguity is another SEC advantage.
I don't think there is anything even remotely morally ambiguous at all about their views on the subject. Quite the opposite in fact - it would be morally unjustifiable NOT to take every possible advantage in order to win.
Well when was the last time an Arizona fan murdered their friend for being insufficiently unhappy about a loss to Arizona State?
Berkut, that is rather silly.
The SEC gets 2 BCS teams because they often have two teams that are good and have fan bases that will travel / turn on the television. In fact, they often have more than two, but the other conferences have pushed the arrangement that they are limited to two.
Sharing money among all teams isn't unique in the SEC, and depending how you do the accounting they aren't the top conference in payouts anyway.
Also, every team creates schedules to their own benefit. What does make the SEC somewhat unique is that its teams can create out of conference schedules without major concerns about ticket revenue (compared to some schools in the ACC or Pac 12 that will play to half empty stadiums if they schedule a weak school--hell some SEC teams have seen attendance over 80k for spring games).
What makes the SEC really good is fairly obvious. Look at the recruiting rankings the past few years. They dominate. And the reason they dominate recruiting is also fairly obvious: they are located where the top players are, they routinely have the top attendance in the country, they have some of the best facilities, and because of the TV and attendance revenue have the money to bring in the top coaches.
Of course. The SEC is better just because they are better and have better fans. Uh huh.
I am sure nearly every SEC fan believes that, and just about nobody else.
If your claim was true, then NCAA football would not be the national draw that it is - it would just be a regional sport. And if that were true, the SEC would have dominated college football for the last 100 years instead of just the last 20 or so.
And yeah, I am also sure that non-SEC schools would love to play the absolute patsy bullshit OOC schedules that the SEC does, but again, they just don't have the fan dedication to allow that to happen. :lmfao:
Hey MBM I hate to be the bearer of horrible tidings but your favorite coach at UT, Jeff "Mad Dog" Madden, has been let go. I assume you will need a few hours of mourning before you can reply to this post.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 03:13:03 PM
Of course. The SEC is better just because they are better and have better fans. Uh huh.
I am sure nearly every SEC fan believes that, and just about nobody else.
If your claim was true, then NCAA football would not be the national draw that it is - it would just be a regional sport. And if that were true, the SEC would have dominated college football for the last 100 years instead of just the last 20 or so.
And yeah, I am also sure that non-SEC schools would love to play the absolute patsy bullshit OOC schedules that the SEC does, but again, they just don't have the fan dedication to allow that to happen. :lmfao:
Who has said the SEC has dominated because it has the best fans?
The #1 factor is that they are in the region with the best football players. Miami has won 5 titles--I think more than anyone since 1980--with 4 coaches and in 3 decades--and even in the best times has seen attendance under 30k in a 70k+ stadiums.
Quote
And yeah, I am also sure that non-SEC schools would love to play the absolute patsy bullshit OOC schedules that the SEC does, but again, they just don't have the fan dedication to allow that to happen. :lmfao:
Then why do you think they don't? I know exactly what drives Miami's entire OOC schedule: ticket sales. Hence they try to play Florida A&M (they bring a big crowd to see the band), other Florida schools like USF and UCF that bring their own fans, and competitive teams. If Miami didn't have to worry about ticket sales, scheduling could be based on competitive factors.
The SEC is better because it has more black people to choose from. Sure Pac 12 teams will have black corners, but they won't be as fast.
The idea that other conferences respect NCAA rules strikes me as naive.
Texas does their OOC like this:
One pansy
One middling team
One Power Conference team
This season it was:
New Mexico State (Pansy)
BYU (Middling)
Mississippi (Power Conference)
Next season:
North Texas (Pansy)
BYU (Middling)
UCLA (Power Conference)
This has been the pattern for years.
Though in 2015 it gets weird since they have Cal and Notre Dame. Cal sucks but still a Pac-12 team for the 'middling' team is pretty rough.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 07, 2014, 03:24:06 PM
The SEC is better because it has more black people to choose from. Sure Pac 12 teams will have black corners, but they won't be as fast.
The idea that other conferences respect NCAA rules strikes me as naive.
Well more black people who play football. Black people in the north tend to play Basketball.
A lot of states outside the south don't have spring high school football. If you don't commit your athletes to the sport year round, you should be suprised that your athletes lose to the places where they do.
The house negroes moved north and the field negroes stayed put.
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2014, 03:20:22 PM
Hey MBM I hate to be the bearer of horrible tidings but your favorite coach at UT, Jeff "Mad Dog" Madden, has been let go. I assume you will need a few hours of mourning before you can reply to this post.
Wait. So you're saying there won't be some morbidly obese dude huffing and puffing his way out onto the field ahead of the players anymore? But......it's a
tradition :(
E: I take it Wiley is gone too? From what I understand Strong was bringing his S/C coach with him.
E2: The main staff page has been cleaned out: http://texassports.com/sports/2013/7/17/FB_0717132218.aspx
Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2014, 03:25:27 PM
Texas does their OOC like this:
One pansy
One middling team
One Power Conference team
This season it was:
New Mexico State (Pansy)
BYU (Middling)
Mississippi (Power Conference)
Next season:
North Texas (Pansy)
BYU (Middling)
UCLA (Power Conference)
This has been the pattern for years.
Though in 2015 it gets weird since they have Cal and Notre Dame. Cal sucks but still a Pac-12 team for the 'middling' team is pretty rough.
That is a pretty common theme, which most schools that want to actually strike a reasonable balance will tend to go for (although of course what constitutes a weak/middling/strong opponent will change).
Of course, if all that matters is making sure you get enough wins to either
A) Get into a bowl game, any bowl game, and
B) Make sure you don't risk a loss to an actually competitive team in OOC
then you will end up with OOC schedules much like what you see in the SEC. They play an extra OOC game, and that game is just about always someone who has zero chance of beating them.
Basically, the SEC starts each season with 1 extra win per team.
Like I've said, you have to admire the conference because they really are the masters of playing the game that is NCAA football at the meta level. They are better at it than everyone else.
However, as a non-SEC college football fan, I hate it because it is classic prisoners dilemna. If everyone does the same, it will (and has, for that matter) made college football a much less enjoyable sport for everyone involved outside the SEC.
My only hope is that strength of non-conference schedule become an important part of deciding who gets to a bowl game, just like it is the case in basketball. That will encourage a better mix of OOC football for everyone, even if it is only one part of the reason why the SEC is so dominant.
However, simply because that would weaken the SECs stranglehold, I doubt it will happen.
I thought the SEC was so successful because of their high academic standards and commitment to educating student-athletes.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 07, 2014, 03:48:29 PM
E: I take it Wiley is gone too? From what I understand Strong was bringing his S/C coach with him.
Well I have no insider information but it sounds like everybody but the interns and low level staff were let go in the S/C program.
Valmy, you see the fake Charlie Strong twitter account that went up almost immediately?
@BDavisAAS: Didn't take long for a fake Charlie Strong twitter account.
@ChuckFnStrong: Come tell that to my quads, paper boy.
:D
@ChuckFnStrong
@BarkingCarnival Where do I get my parking pass do I talk to this Plonsky person for that?
@ChuckFnStrong
@shaggybevo Are you the official Texas Football site?
@ChuckFnStrong
I thought the workout equipment here was new. It's not. Just never been used. Guess I'll give it a go. See y'all in three hours.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2014, 04:29:37 PM
I thought the SEC was so successful because of their high academic standards and commitment to educating student-athletes.
:lmfao:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2014, 04:29:37 PM
I thought the SEC was so successful because of their high academic standards and commitment to educating student-athletes.
No, it turns out that it is actually because the people who follow SEC schools are better fans than the rest of us.
They are all like that guy from Texas, I guess?
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 05:04:54 PM
They are all like that guy from Texas, I guess?
:hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 04:21:38 PM
That is a pretty common theme, which most schools that want to actually strike a reasonable balance will tend to go for (although of course what constitutes a weak/middling/strong opponent will change).
Of course, if all that matters is making sure you get enough wins to either
A) Get into a bowl game, any bowl game, and
B) Make sure you don't risk a loss to an actually competitive team in OOC
then you will end up with OOC schedules much like what you see in the SEC. They play an extra OOC game, and that game is just about always someone who has zero chance of beating them.
Basically, the SEC starts each season with 1 extra win per team.
Like I've said, you have to admire the conference because they really are the masters of playing the game that is NCAA football at the meta level. They are better at it than everyone else.
However, as a non-SEC college football fan, I hate it because it is classic prisoners dilemna. If everyone does the same, it will (and has, for that matter) made college football a much less enjoyable sport for everyone involved outside the SEC.
My only hope is that strength of non-conference schedule become an important part of deciding who gets to a bowl game, just like it is the case in basketball. That will encourage a better mix of OOC football for everyone, even if it is only one part of the reason why the SEC is so dominant.
However, simply because that would weaken the SECs stranglehold, I doubt it will happen.
This "extra game" crap is nonsense. The SEC plays an 8 game schedule. That is the same, or more, as every conference in college football except for the Big 12 and Pac 12. However, the Big 12 doesn't have a championship game, so a Big 12 team plays the same number of conference games as an SEC division champ (which is what we are generally talking about among conference title contenders).
Also, most major SEC teams scheduled a major out of conference opponent. Auburn, Texas A&M, and Missouri are exceptions.
Here are the conference champs strength of schedule from Sagarin:
Auburn: 29
FSU: 62
Stanford: 1
Michigan State: 51
Baylor 48
So if you want to brag about the Pac 12, go ahead. But the SEC is not the outlier. I'd also point out that there are reasons the Pac 12 is the only conference with a 9 game schedule and a championship, and they aren't all love of competition. A lot relate to money and TV. Pac 12 fans seem to love Larry Scott for the money and exposure he brings to the Pac 12, but he is getting that by crashing his teams together in a way no other conference does.
Wooo! We're 25th!! In final poll that is. :P
Quote from: katmai on January 07, 2014, 05:23:17 PM
Wooo! We're 25th!! In final poll that is. :P
:yeah: Congrats to the mighty Huskies!
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 05:04:54 PM
They are all like that guy from Texas, I guess?
Bill?
Ah man I haven't heard from Bill in awhile. No wonder this season seemed gloomier than usual.
Imagine a fanbase made up entirely of Bill in Sinton type people.
E: Focused.
So Red McCombs is already butthurt that he doesn't have the same amount of access to the program now that Dodds and Mack are gone.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 07, 2014, 05:46:00 PM
So Red McCombs is already butthurt that he doesn't have the same amount of access to the program now that Dodds and Mack are gone.
Yeah that was pretty embarrassing little rant he went on. Saying Charlie Strong was only fit to be a position coach...WTF?
I still say bowl games in the north in open-air stadiums would help college football immensely.
Do the playoff games in Minneapolis, Chicago, Green Bay and Buffalo.
So Wyoming's #1 QB (and all time offensive yards leader) is going early to the draft. The #2 QB (a redshirt sophomore) just transferred today to Utah to follow the fired coach who is now the OC there...
New coach, no QB, 2 of the first 3 games at Michigan St and Oregon next year...I need a drink.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 02:58:58 PM
They aren't much concerned with NCAA rules, except insofar as properly balancing risk/reward so to make sure that there isn't too much damage if and when they are caught...and they don't get caught much. But they certainly understand that there is and should be zero consideration actually given to those rules and the intent behind them.
Quote
I don't think there is anything even remotely morally ambiguous at all about their views on the subject. Quite the opposite in fact - it would be morally unjustifiable NOT to take every possible advantage in order to win.
One could certainly argue that from a pragmatic standpoint, but I don't see how you can argue that it's moral.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 07, 2014, 05:20:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 04:21:38 PM
That is a pretty common theme, which most schools that want to actually strike a reasonable balance will tend to go for (although of course what constitutes a weak/middling/strong opponent will change).
Of course, if all that matters is making sure you get enough wins to either
A) Get into a bowl game, any bowl game, and
B) Make sure you don't risk a loss to an actually competitive team in OOC
then you will end up with OOC schedules much like what you see in the SEC. They play an extra OOC game, and that game is just about always someone who has zero chance of beating them.
Basically, the SEC starts each season with 1 extra win per team.
Like I've said, you have to admire the conference because they really are the masters of playing the game that is NCAA football at the meta level. They are better at it than everyone else.
However, as a non-SEC college football fan, I hate it because it is classic prisoners dilemna. If everyone does the same, it will (and has, for that matter) made college football a much less enjoyable sport for everyone involved outside the SEC.
My only hope is that strength of non-conference schedule become an important part of deciding who gets to a bowl game, just like it is the case in basketball. That will encourage a better mix of OOC football for everyone, even if it is only one part of the reason why the SEC is so dominant.
However, simply because that would weaken the SECs stranglehold, I doubt it will happen.
This "extra game" crap is nonsense. The SEC plays an 8 game schedule. That is the same, or more, as every conference in college football except for the Big 12 and Pac 12.
Right, so you admit that they don't play 9 conference games, like the serious BCS conferences. Good.
Of course, it isn't just about not playing 9 games - it is about who they replace that conference game they are dodging with - are they taking that 4th non-con game and finding a good match up?
Err....no. So yeah, it is most definitely an extra win each year. Replacing a BCS quality opponent with some patsy is a HUGE difference. Plus it allows for even more careful scheduling to make sure the SEC's designated "BCS title game" contender can dodge the other top SEC teams.
Quote
However, the Big 12 doesn't have a championship game, so a Big 12 team plays the same number of conference games as an SEC division champ (which is what we are generally talking about among conference title contenders).
We are not talking about conference title contenders, so no, you don't get a pass there.
Quote
Also, most major SEC teams scheduled a major out of conference opponent. Auburn, Texas A&M, and Missouri are exceptions.
Some of them do, plenty of them do not, and since they get an extra game every year, you would think they would schedule more than one...but no.
Quote
Here are the conference champs strength of schedule from Sagarin:
Why would we only look at the conference champions?
Quote
So if you want to brag about the Pac 12, go ahead. But the SEC is not the outlier. I'd also point out that there are reasons the Pac 12 is the only conference with a 9 game schedule and a championship, and they aren't all love of competition. A lot relate to money and TV. Pac 12 fans seem to love Larry Scott for the money and exposure he brings to the Pac 12, but he is getting that by crashing his teams together in a way no other conference does.
That is because almost every other conference has followed in the footsteps of the SEC to schedule more and more and MORE patsy schedules to guarantee they jam as many teams into bowl and NC games as possible. Which proves my point about how the SEC, while they've won the meta game of college football, is harming the sport in the process.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 07, 2014, 05:40:00 PM
Imagine a fanbase made up entirely of Bill in Sinton type people.
E: Focused.
It would be a fan base very similar to one made up entirely of D4H type people.
Yes, the SEC is the best, and it is the best because, well, because WE, the fans, are the best.
That's right.
So Dorsey, since you seem to put a reasonable amount of stock in Mr. Sagarin and his ratings, did you notice that he has the Pac-12 overall rated higher than the SEC this year?
CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS WIN50%
1 SEC-WEST (A) = 83.73 83.17 ( 1) 7 83.74 ( 1)
2 PAC-12(NORTH) (A) = 82.67 81.33 ( 2) 6 82.80 ( 2)
3 PAC-12(SOUTH) (A) = 82.28 81.28 ( 3) 6 82.05 ( 3)
4 SEC-EAST (A) = 78.14 77.89 ( 4) 7 78.12 ( 4)
5 BIG 12 (A) = 78.13 77.34 ( 6) 10 78.01 ( 5)
6 BIG TEN-LEGENDS (A) = 76.67 77.36 ( 5) 6 76.78 ( 6)
7 ACC-COASTAL (A) = 74.22 73.15 ( 8) 7 73.69 ( 7)
8 BIG TEN-LEADERS (A) = 73.25 72.64 ( 9) 6 73.21 ( 8)
9 ACC-ATLANTIC (A) = 72.57 74.56 ( 7) 7 71.95 ( 9)
10 AMERICAN ATHLETIC (A) = 65.15 66.51 ( 10) 10 65.37 ( 10)
Berkut, you may have forgotten this, but Dorsey is an ACC fan.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 07, 2014, 07:16:17 PM
Berkut, you may have forgotten this, but Dorsey is an ACC fan.
Don't let the facts get in my way.
Besides, southerners are all the same anyway. At least when it comes to football.
It doesn't hurt that the best SEC teams rarely play the best teams from the other SEC division. 4 OOC cupcakes, 6 games against division opponents and 2 games against the worst 2 teams in the other division makes for a nice schedule.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 03:13:03 PM
Of course. The SEC is better just because they are better and have better fans. Uh huh.
I am sure nearly every SEC fan believes that, and just about nobody else.
If your claim was true, then NCAA football would not be the national draw that it is - it would just be a regional sport. And if that were true, the SEC would have dominated college football for the last 100 years instead of just the last 20 or so.
And yeah, I am also sure that non-SEC schools would love to play the absolute patsy bullshit OOC schedules that the SEC does, but again, they just don't have the fan dedication to allow that to happen. :lmfao:
Berk I am an acc fan. I hate the sec arrogance and have to suffer through it more than most. I was glAd FSU drew the sec champ instead of Ohio state because a victory over anyone other than the sec champ would not shut them up.
You can chose to ignore the reality that I have set forth (there is no mid America school that puts 80k per game into a stadium the way that South Carolina did even before spurrier) but dismissing what I said because you claim I'm an sec homer is a flawed premise.
Quote from: sbr on January 07, 2014, 07:29:21 PM
It doesn't hurt that the best SEC teams rarely play the best teams from the other SEC division. 4 OOC cupcakes, 6 games against division opponents and 2 games against the worst 2 teams in the other division makes for a nice schedule.
Georgia plays Auburn every year. I realize 8 wins isn't that great, but hardly bottom 2 SEC East. :hmm:
Also, they play Georgia Tech every year, but I know you're not talking about Georgia's schedule. -_-
I am dismissing what you say because it is patently and obviously not true.
There are plenty of schools that draw fans to every game at some point or another, and yet still schedule tough.
The idea that the SEC is replacing a conference game with a patsy because their oh so awesome fans don't mind, is just ridiculous.
What is interesting is that this is changing - the SEC is apparently directing their schools that they should be shooting for 10 quality games per year. Of course, that assumes that all eight conference games are "quallity", and then a bowl game and they are raising the bar from 0 non-patsies per team to 1 non-patsy per team. Heady stuff!
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 07:04:14 PM
Right, so you admit that they don't play 9 conference games, like the serious BCS conferences. Good.
Of course, it isn't just about not playing 9 games - it is about who they replace that conference game they are dodging with - are they taking that 4th non-con game and finding a good match up?
Err....no. So yeah, it is most definitely an extra win each year. Replacing a BCS quality opponent with some patsy is a HUGE difference. Plus it allows for even more careful scheduling to make sure the SEC's designated "BCS title game" contender can dodge the other top SEC teams.
Quote
However, the Big 12 doesn't have a championship game, so a Big 12 team plays the same number of conference games as an SEC division champ (which is what we are generally talking about among conference title contenders).
We are not talking about conference title contenders, so no, you don't get a pass there.
Quote
Also, most major SEC teams scheduled a major out of conference opponent. Auburn, Texas A&M, and Missouri are exceptions.
Some of them do, plenty of them do not, and since they get an extra game every year, you would think they would schedule more than one...but no.
Quote
Here are the conference champs strength of schedule from Sagarin:
Why would we only look at the conference champions?
Quote
So if you want to brag about the Pac 12, go ahead. But the SEC is not the outlier. I'd also point out that there are reasons the Pac 12 is the only conference with a 9 game schedule and a championship, and they aren't all love of competition. A lot relate to money and TV. Pac 12 fans seem to love Larry Scott for the money and exposure he brings to the Pac 12, but he is getting that by crashing his teams together in a way no other conference does.
That is because almost every other conference has followed in the footsteps of the SEC to schedule more and more and MORE patsy schedules to guarantee they jam as many teams into bowl and NC games as possible. Which proves my point about how the SEC, while they've won the meta game of college football, is harming the sport in the process.
I'm focusing on division champs because I can only think of one exception a non division champ (from a conference with divisions) got into the championship game. If you want to argue that it isn't fair that the SEC can sometimes get its fourth place team into the Cotton Bowl while the fourth place Pac 12 team goes to the Sun Bowl, the floor is all yours. (although bowl games matchups, outside of the championship game, really about ticket sales and ratings, not fairness)
Auburn played as many conference games as any team in college football not named Arizona State or Stanford. While Auburn played a crap OOC schedule, Alabama, LSU, Florida, UGA, Tennessee, and South Carolina do not. Besides, if they take the 4th OOC game and schedule a complete joke of a team, why should they be penalized for that over a Big 12 school, that actually plays one less game? (and no, I don't think you should get credit for beating a Sun Belt or FCS school).
It is crazy to think that the SEC invented scheduling management. It has been around for a long long time. Bobby Bowden cited it as a reason to join the ACC, and he just said what every team considers.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 07:05:33 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 07, 2014, 05:40:00 PM
Imagine a fanbase made up entirely of Bill in Sinton type people.
E: Focused.
It would be a fan base very similar to one made up entirely of D4H type people.
Yes, the SEC is the best, and it is the best because, well, because WE, the fans, are the best.
That's right.
Christ. What is the point of replying to Berkut when he never reads what you write?
I've not said that the SEC is the best because the fans are the best. The major factor is being located where the best recruits are. Everything is secondary after that.
As I distinctly remember saying a few hours ago, Miami has won more national titles (5) since 1980 than any other program, under 4 coaches and in 3 decades. All with the smallest and most fickle fanbase of any major program. Why? Because it is located in probably the best recruiting location in the country.
Quote from: Berkut on January 07, 2014, 07:08:52 PM
So Dorsey, since you seem to put a reasonable amount of stock in Mr. Sagarin and his ratings, did you notice that he has the Pac-12 overall rated higher than the SEC this year?
CONFERENCE CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS WIN50%
1 SEC-WEST (A) = 83.73 83.17 ( 1) 7 83.74 ( 1)
2 PAC-12(NORTH) (A) = 82.67 81.33 ( 2) 6 82.80 ( 2)
3 PAC-12(SOUTH) (A) = 82.28 81.28 ( 3) 6 82.05 ( 3)
4 SEC-EAST (A) = 78.14 77.89 ( 4) 7 78.12 ( 4)
5 BIG 12 (A) = 78.13 77.34 ( 6) 10 78.01 ( 5)
6 BIG TEN-LEGENDS (A) = 76.67 77.36 ( 5) 6 76.78 ( 6)
7 ACC-COASTAL (A) = 74.22 73.15 ( 8) 7 73.69 ( 7)
8 BIG TEN-LEADERS (A) = 73.25 72.64 ( 9) 6 73.21 ( 8)
9 ACC-ATLANTIC (A) = 72.57 74.56 ( 7) 7 71.95 ( 9)
10 AMERICAN ATHLETIC (A) = 65.15 66.51 ( 10) 10 65.37 ( 10)
I actually think that the Sagarin ratings are complete shit, especially after he changed the formula this year. But I've seen you refer to them, and there aren't many great sources for strength of schedule ratings.
But if you want to argue the Pac 12 has the best middle and lower tier teams in the country, I will probably agree with you. Depending on the definition of "best conference", that could make the Pac 12 the best.
Quote from: sbr on January 07, 2014, 07:29:21 PM
It doesn't hurt that the best SEC teams rarely play the best teams from the other SEC division. 4 OOC cupcakes, 6 games against division opponents and 2 games against the worst 2 teams in the other division makes for a nice schedule.
???
They play 1 rival and 1 rotating opponent.
The rivals of the good teams:
LSU - Florida
Alabama - Tennessee
Auburn - Georgia
Granted, Tennessee sucks right now (and UF just had a down year), but they seem to be matching up the best programs as rivals.
I blame the SEC scheduling for Huskies adopting that A,B,C scheduling.
Saturday Aug. 30 at Hawaii Rainbow Warriors
Aloha Stadium, Honolulu, HI
Saturday Sept. 6 Eastern Washington Eagles
Husky Stadium, Seattle, WA
Saturday Sept. 13 Illinois Fighting Illini
Husky Stadium, Seattle, WA
Saturday Sept. 20 Georgia State Panthers
Husky Stadium, Seattle, WA
Quote from: katmai on January 07, 2014, 09:44:34 PM
I blame the SEC scheduling for Huskies adopting that A,B,C scheduling.
Saturday Aug. 30 at Hawaii Rainbow Warriors
Aloha Stadium, Honolulu, HI
Saturday Sept. 6 Eastern Washington Eagles
Husky Stadium, Seattle, WA
Saturday Sept. 13 Illinois Fighting Illini
Husky Stadium, Seattle, WA
Saturday Sept. 20 Georgia State Panthers
Husky Stadium, Seattle, WA
That is "everybody sucks" scheduling.
Yes and I blame the SEC for it.
Quote from: katmai on January 07, 2014, 10:01:09 PM
Yes and I blame the SEC for it.
It did work for Auburn and Missouri this year. ;)
Berkut's been on this anti-SEC pro-PAC thing for 4-5 years or longer. The reality is that extra Pac game means you can say those teams play a somewhat more difficult schedule. Doesn't mean they are better teams, nor does it mean the Pac is a better conference. History shows the SEC to have the superior teams over all. Does the SEC benefit from near constant ESPN handjobs and general overratedness? Yes, anyone who follows college football can see that, a loss in the SEC is never regarded the same as a loss in the Pac or the B1G (which usually ends those team's title hopes.)
But it's sort of like overselling the best car in the world, the SEC is oversold, but they are still legitimately the best conference largely for the reasons D4H mentioned.
The other reality is the BCS era proved that the extra conference game is not better for your conference, so the Pac has no one to blame but its commissioner (and by extension the university Presidents who are collectively his boss) for making a decision based on what I imagine to be financial motives instead of competitive ones.
I said very clearly that the SEC has won the meta college football game - of course that means that they do in fact put out the best product, and overall are by far the best conference.
And yes, the extra game is NOT better for your conference, the SEC has proven that it is better for your conference to replace a quality in conference opponent with a complete patsy, because winning is more important than competitiveness.
I am not arguing with anything you are saying, I am just not accepting that these things are good for college football in general, even if they are good for the SEC.
It is simply laughable, for example, that you can sit there with a straight face and comment about the Pac-12 playing an extra game against a good in conference opponent, and have the audacity to even mention competitive reasons. I don't really care what the reasons are for playing another good game instead of another FCS or Nth tier patsy, the RESULT is another competitive and interesting game.
This is a *perfect* example of exactly the problem with this kind of thinking. All that matters is the result. If playing a chump patsy results in more wins and more bowl games for the SEC, then that is a good decision. Who cares if it results in less actual good football being played, you are a chump if you care about such silly things!
Props to Saban, BTW - when the SEC voted whether to go to a 9 game conference schedule, he was the only head coach with the balls to vote in favor. The other 13 voted to keep playing an extra meaningless free win game.
Quote from: Berkut on January 08, 2014, 09:36:36 AM
I said very clearly that the SEC has won the meta college football game - of course that means that they do in fact put out the best product, and overall are by far the best conference.
And yes, the extra game is NOT better for your conference, the SEC has proven that it is better for your conference to replace a quality in conference opponent with a complete patsy, because winning is more important than competitiveness.
I am not arguing with anything you are saying, I am just not accepting that these things are good for college football in general, even if they are good for the SEC.
It is simply laughable, for example, that you can sit there with a straight face and comment about the Pac-12 playing an extra game against a good in conference opponent, and have the audacity to even mention competitive reasons. I don't really care what the reasons are for playing another good game instead of another FCS or Nth tier patsy, the RESULT is another competitive and interesting game.
This is a *perfect* example of exactly the problem with this kind of thinking. All that matters is the result. If playing a chump patsy results in more wins and more bowl games for the SEC, then that is a good decision. Who cares if it results in less actual good football being played, you are a chump if you care about such silly things!
I give the Pac 12 a lot of credit for going to 9 conference games. But they one of only two conferences that have done so, and the only one with a championship game. The SEC is doing what is normal--the Pac 12 is the outlier. Rather than the SEC building itself an advantage, the Pac 12 has built itself a disadvantage. To imply the SEC has "replaced" a conference opponent with a weak out of conference oponent is unfair: to my knowledge the Pac 12 and the Big 12 are the only conferences to ever play a 9 game schedule, and they have only done so for a few years. The SEC has never had a 9 game schedule. Maybe there was another conference with a 9 game schedule I'm forgetting, but it clearly has never been the norm.
If it was up to me, all the conferences would play a 9 game schedule (assuming enough teams). Games against FCS opponents would be banned. Possibly even the Sun Belt and MAC would be relegated to the FCS. But it isn't up to me, those aren't the rules, and the current system penalizes teams that try to schedule like that.
However, Berkut, aren't you an Arizona fan? Have you paid attention to your own team's out of conference scheduling?
Surely the Big 10, pre-Penn State, had a nine game schedule.
Edit: Huh it appears they didn't. That's lame.
I have to say I like the 9 game Big 12 schedule. Seeing Kansas on the schedule every year is comforting.
Replace the whole stupid system with a season long 11 game ranking tournament. Each week teams play the closest (geographic) opponent that they haven't played yet with the same win/loss record. Include every college football team out there. Resolve uneven win/loss issues from the top down. Develops regional rivalries since the top undefeated teams in an area will have to face each other. Get some potential for Cinderella runs, and at most you'll have one undefeated team at the end. Have bowl games or playoffs at the end if you want, whatever is preferred, but keep the excitement about the regular season.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2014, 02:09:38 PM
Surely the Big 10, pre-Penn State, had a nine game schedule.
Edit: Huh it appears they didn't. That's lame.
It was somewhat more difficult with an 11 game schedule.
I think the selling point for a 12 game schedule was that conferences would have the flexibility to go to 9 games. But only the Pac 10/12 did (and the Big 12 did after defections).
I like the Big 12 schedule, but I don't think it is so noble in intentions either. Some of the coaches in the Big 12 have been vocal about not wanting a championship game. An 8 game schedule plus a division champ is going to be easier on average than a 9 game schedule with that 9th game against a random conference opponent.
Frunk, that is not a good idea--there are a lot of rivalries and conference traditions in college football already, and that would do away with them.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2014, 02:32:53 PM
I like the Big 12 schedule, but I don't think it is so noble in intentions either.
Um no the Big 12 is not being run by Sir Galahad. But it is not like you can really have a title game for a 10 team conference anyway.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2014, 02:32:53 PM
Frunk, that is not a good idea--there are a lot of rivalries and conference traditions in college football already, and that would do away with them.
It is an impossible idea. You cannot improvise dozens of road games every week on the fly.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2014, 02:35:10 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2014, 02:32:53 PM
I like the Big 12 schedule, but I don't think it is so noble in intentions either.
Um no the Big 12 is not being run by Sir Galahad. But it is not like you can really have a title game for a 10 team conference anyway.
This also comes down to whether the Big 12 should stick with 10 schools or go to 12.
My brother is a UCF grad and superfan and is convinced/deluded that the Big 12 will invite UCF. What do you think?
I tend to think, if the Big 12 expands, the obvious target is BYU (who has to accept at this point). I don't know the partner. Cincinnati? Houston? SMU? If they go to 14, UCF and USF could make some sense. But why that would make the conference better escapes me.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2014, 02:32:53 PM
Frunk, that is not a good idea--there are a lot of rivalries and conference traditions in college football already, and that would do away with them.
These are developed from having a history. If you start generating a history of similarly powerful teams playing each other new rivalries and traditions will be created, and old ones will pop back up again when appropriate.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2014, 02:36:34 PM
It is an impossible idea. You cannot improvise dozens of road games every week on the fly.
Just about every week it would be possible to calculate who the possible following opponents would be before the matches are played, so teams would have at least a two week window on who they would be playing. If it's a big concern split it into swiss type 3 or 4 week groupings of similarly ranked opponents.
The Big 12 is / was badly managed and at different points they could have acquired some attractive teams. At this point they are left with two difficult routes, route A they stick with what they have. This means they play 9 conference games a year but do not get the visibility of a conference championship game. Only time will tell how that would affect the Big 12 champion in making it into the four team playoff. Route B, they invite two additional teams, but dilute each team's revenue. The fear is since only slim pickings are left, if you add a Cincy or UCF you're looking at net revenue declines for the existing Big 12 schools.
My understanding is Texas refuses to sign off on any team that isn't going to build net revenue for the conference what that means obviously is adding the school increases the total conference revenue enough that each of the current team's preserves its current payout--the expectation is just adding Cincy and UCF or something doesn't give you the product necessary to go and negotiate a new TV deal and etc such that you can make that a reality.
I know BYU has always had a strong following in Mormon country so it's possible they could be a net revenue positive team, and as mentioned they do essentially have to accept a Big 12 offer. But that's one team, that maybe is net revenue positive. Not sure what team #2 would be. Cincinnati is a commuter school, UCF lives in a land of giants and is unlikely to attract tons of money even though it does have access to extremely fertile recruiting grounds. Connecticut is too far away, Houston maybe, I don't know. The Big 12 sat on the sidelines and reacted (weakly) to all of the conference realignment. It's embarrassing a conference with two historical college football superpowers like Oklahoma and Texas was outmaneuvered by a conference largely lead by North Carolina basketball schools.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2014, 02:09:38 PM
Surely the Big 10, pre-Penn State, had a nine game schedule.
Edit: Huh it appears they didn't. That's lame.
The Big Ten played a complete round robin for two years, I believe. They go back to nine games starting next year.
I remember for years during the Big 11 era they did only 8 conference games so you ended up with weird situations...I seem to remember one year where Wisconsin was really good but never played OSU (the other good team that year)
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2014, 02:42:43 PM
This also comes down to whether the Big 12 should stick with 10 schools or go to 12.
My brother is a UCF grad and superfan and is convinced/deluded that the Big 12 will invite UCF. What do you think?
I tend to think, if the Big 12 expands, the obvious target is BYU (who has to accept at this point). I don't know the partner. Cincinnati? Houston? SMU? If they go to 14, UCF and USF could make some sense. But why that would make the conference better escapes me.
It would take a shift in leadership for the Big 12 to expand. I am all for it, of course, but when old man Dodds was running Texas he and the OU AD were determined to keep it at 10. UT has new leadership but OU, and other schools I suspect, has little interest in reducing their TV money. I would be shocked if Steve Patterson, the new UT AD, is going to be some sort of crusader for expansion. It is annoying, short sighted, and stupid IMO. The league should have taken Louisville when they invited West Virginia. They should have jumped on the ACC when it appeared weak. They never miss a chance to miss a chance.
I would be in favor of adding BYU and UCF of course. But I would rate the chances of that as very very low.
Duh. The obvious choice is Wyoming to the Big 12.
Shocked, yes I am...
Quote(CNN) -- Early in her career as a learning specialist, Mary Willingham was in her office when a basketball player at the University of North Carolina walked in looking for help with his classwork.
He couldn't read or write.
"And I kind of panicked. What do you do with that?" she said, recalling the meeting.
Willingham's job was to help athletes who weren't quite ready academically for the work required at UNC at Chapel Hill, one of the country's top public universities.
But she was shocked that one couldn't read. And then she found he was not an anomaly.
Soon, she'd meet a student-athlete who couldn't read multisyllabic words. She had to teach him to sound out Wis-con-sin, as kids do in elementary school.
And then another came with this request: "If I could teach him to read well enough so he could read about himself in the news, because that was something really important to him," Willingham said.
Student-athletes who can't read well, but play in the money-making collegiate sports of football and basketball, are not a new phenomenon, and they certainly aren't found only at UNC-Chapel Hill.
A CNN investigation found public universities across the country where many students in the basketball and football programs could read only up to an eighth-grade level. The data obtained through open records requests also showed a staggering achievement gap between college athletes and their peers at the same institution.
This is not an exhaustive survey of all universities with major sports programs; CNN chose a sampling of public universities where open records laws apply. We sought data from a total of 37 institutions, of which 21 schools responded. The others denied our request for entrance exam or aptitude test scores, some saying the information did not exist and others citing privacy rules. Some simply did not provide it in time.
Academic vs. athletic scandal
As a graduate student at UNC-Greensboro, Willingham researched the reading levels of 183 UNC-Chapel Hill athletes who played football or basketball from 2004 to 2012. She found that 60% read between fourth- and eighth-grade levels. Between 8% and 10% read below a third-grade level.
"So what are the classes they are going to take to get a degree here? You cannot come here with a third-, fourth- or fifth-grade education and get a degree here," she told CNN.
The issue was highlighted at UNC two years ago with the exposure of a scandal where students, many of them athletes, were given grades for classes they didn't attend, and where they did nothing more than turn in a single paper. Last month, a North Carolina grand jury indicted a professor at the center of the scandal on fraud charges. He's accused of being paid $12,000 for a class he didn't teach.
When Willingham worked as a learning specialist for athletes from 2003 to 2010, she admits she took part in cheating, signing her name to forms that said she witnessed no NCAA rules violations when in fact she did. But the NCAA, the college sports organizing body, never interviewed her. Instead, it found no rules had been broken at Chapel Hill.
UNC now says 120 reforms put in place ensure there are no academic transgressions.
But Willingham said fake classes were just a symptom of the bigger problem of enrolling good athletes who didn't have the reading skills to succeed at college.
"Isn't it all cheating if I'm sitting at a table with a kid who can't read or write at college level and pulling a paper out of them? Is this really legitimate? No," Willingham told CNN. "I wouldn't do that today with a college student; I only did it with athletics, because it's necessary."
NCAA sports are big business, with millions of dollars at stake for winning programs.
In 2012, the University of Louisville earned a profit of $26.9 million from its men's basketball program, according to figures that schools have to file with the Department of Education and were analyzed by CNNMoney. That's about 60% more than the $16.9 million profit at the University of North Carolina, whose men's hoops team had the second-largest profit.
Willingham, now a graduation adviser with access to student files, said she believes there are still athletes at UNC who can't do the coursework.
UNC Athletics Director Bubba Cunningham told CNN the school admits only students it believes can succeed.
"I think our students have an exceptional experience in the classroom as well as on the fields of competition," he said.
Anecdotally, NCAA officials admit there are probably stories that are troubling, but they also say the vast majority of student-athletes compete at a high level in the classroom.
"Are there students coming to college underprepared? Sure. They are not just student-athletes," said Kevin Lennon, vice president of academic and membership affairs at the NCAA.
But he said the NCAA sees it as the responsibility of universities to decide what level athlete should be admitted to their schools.
"Once the school admits them, the school should do everything it can to make sure the student succeeds," he said. "(Universities) don't want a national standard that says who they can recruit and admit. They want those decisions with the president, provost and athletic directors. That is the critical piece of all of this."
Scarce information
The NCAA admits that almost 30 athletes in sports that make revenue for schools were accepted in 2012 with very low scores -- below 700 on the SAT composite, where the national average is 1000. That's a small percentage of about 5,700 revenue-sport athletes.
However, the NCAA did not share raw data. The U.S. Department of Education does not track statistics on the topic, nor do the conferences.
In fact, CNN only found one person in addition to Willingham who has ever collected data on the topic. University of Oklahoma professor Gerald Gurney found that about 10% of revenue-sport athletes there were reading below a fourth-grade level.
So, after consulting with several academic experts, CNN filed public records requests and concluded that what Willingham found at UNC and Gurney found at Oklahoma is also happening elsewhere.
The data CNN collected is based on the SAT and ACT entrance exam scores of athletes playing the revenue sports: football and basketball.
In some cases, where that information was not available, CNN then asked for aptitude test scores administered after the athlete was accepted by the university.
Based on data from those requests and dozens of interviews, a CNN investigation revealed that most schools have between 7% and 18% of revenue sport athletes who are reading at an elementary school level. Some had even higher percentages of below-threshold athletes.
According to those academic experts, the threshold for being college-literate is a score of 400 on the SAT critical reading or writing test. On the ACT, that threshold is 16.
Many student-athletes scored in the 200s and 300s on the SAT critical reading test -- a threshold that experts told us was an elementary reading level and too low for college classes. The lowest score possible on that part of the SAT is 200, and the national average is 500.
On the ACT, we found some students scoring in the single digits, when the highest possible score is 36 and the national average is 20. In most cases, the team average ACT reading score was in the high teens.
"It is in many ways immoral for the university to even admit that student," said Dr. Richard M. Southall, director of the College Sport Research Institute and a professor at the University of South Carolina.
Scores aren't the whole story
Officials at the universities from which CNN collected data all said they recognized the low scores -- and gave several possible reasons for them:
-- Some athletes don't aim for high scores when taking entrance exams, looking only to score high enough to become NCAA eligible.
-- Many times, low scores are indicators of learning disabilities.
-- Entrance exams are just one factor taken into consideration when deciding whether to accept a student-athlete.
The officials also said they believe excellent tutoring and extra attention from academic support allows these athletes to excel off the field as well as on, and many cited the high graduation rates of athletes.
Robert Stacey, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Washington, said the conversation should be about the achievement gap -- the difference between the academic levels of the athletes and their nonathlete peers at the same university.
"We know how to close the achievement gap. It's just very expensive," he said. "A student who scored a 380 on his or her (SAT) critical reading is going to face tremendous challenges, won't be able to compete the first year with a student who has a 650 or 700. But with intensive tutoring -- and I'm not talking about cheating, I'm talking about tutoring -- by the time they get to be juniors, they're competing. But it's a very expensive process. It takes intensive work."
But some of the universities from which CNN sought data didn't even have remedial classes for student-athletes to attend. Athletes, many times, take the field before they even get to a classroom. And even if, over time, they can be brought up to speed, how are they getting through the first few semesters?
We found one plausible explanation at Iowa State -- where the achievement gap between students and student-athletes was fairly low.
There, any athlete who is specially admitted -- they would not have gotten in on academics alone -- is mandated to start school in the summer term, where they are given remediation.
Tom Hill, senior vice president for student affairs, said it's done partly because the school recognizes that it is simply too much to ask athletes to jump into a tough schedule of practice and games, plus keep up classwork, especially if they are already academically behind.
"We'll provide them with support and help to begin the process to shore up deficiencies," Hill said. "It's not just throwing them in there."
Hill also said that Iowa State -- a land-grant university that takes many students from small, rural towns across the state -- doesn't separate academic support for athletes from the rest of the student population. Anyone can get the same tutoring as an athlete does.
Hill, who has a long background as an administrator in college athletics, said he is well aware of the practices of pushing athletes through at more competitive schools. And he is blunt about what he thinks of it.
"Those people who do that should be arrested," Hill said. "We should make it against the law. I know it happens. I've spent time in athletics."
Former and current academic advisers, tutors and professors say it's nearly impossible to jump from an elementary to a college reading level while juggling a hectic schedule as an NCAA athlete. They say the NCAA graduation rates are flawed because they don't reflect when a student is being helped too much by academic support.
"They're pushing them through," said Billy Hawkins, an associate professor and athlete mentor at the University of Georgia.
"They're graduating them. UGA is graduating No. 2 in the SEC, so they're able to graduate athletes, but have they learned anything? Are they productive citizens now? That's a thing I worry about. To get a degree is one thing, to be functional with that degree is totally different."
Hawkins, who says in his 25 years at various universities he's witnessed some student-athletes fail to meet college reading standards, added: "It's too much for students reading below a college level. It's basically a farce."
Gurney, who looked into the situation at the University of Oklahoma, put it bluntly: "College presidents have put in jeopardy the academic credibility of their universities just so we can have this entertainment industry. ... The NCAA continually wants to ignore this fact, but they are admitting students who cannot read.
"College textbooks are written at the ninth-grade level, so we are putting these elite athletes into classes where they can't understand the textbooks. Imagine yourself sitting in a class where nothing makes sense."
Risks and rewards
All of the university representatives we talked to deny that their tutors do too much work for student-athletes who come in at such low reading levels.
"I lose sleep about a lot of things; I don't lose sleep about writing tutors. We are extremely strict," said Brian Davis, associate athletics director for football student services at the University of Texas, acknowledging there were, of course, challenges.
"You have to minimize the risk as much as you can. If you're signing 20 (recruits), you can't have 30 to 50% extremely at risk. It puts way too much pressure on the system. That's when you get into more nefarious issues, and I'm very proud of how we've addressed the risk factors," Davis said.
There are anecdotes of student athletes who do succeed. Christine Simatacolos, the associate athletics director for student life at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, talks of a student whose low scores fell below the college literacy threshold but who graduated from Louisiana State University and is now in medical school.
But far more anecdotes of failure were recounted to CNN during our monthlong research.
Kadence Otto, who once taught at Florida State University, recalled one situation where an academic support tutor would call every week to check up on a starting player.
"I would say, 'He's not doing well. He can't read and write.' And (the tutor) said, 'Well, we'll see what we can do,'" Otto said. That stopped with a career-ending injury. "He's worth nothing to the team, and I never once heard back from the academic support adviser. He never showed up to class again, either."
Otto, who now teaches at Western Carolina University, says that experience had a big impact.
"That's one of the reasons I got into working in corruption in college sports. Sending
messages that maybe they don't really care about the athletes as people," she said. And as for claims by institutions that they can bring poor readers up to speed with tutoring, she said: "Honestly, it feels to me it's like trying to turn a Little League Baseball player into a pro."
Periodically since the 1980s, stories have surfaced of athletes who could not read.
-- Former basketball player Kevin Ross told ESPN's "Outside the Lines" about his struggles at Creighton University in the 1980s.
-- In 1989, football player Dexter Manley told Congress that he got through college and into the pros without ever learning to read.
-- Dasmine Cathey's compelling story of struggle at the University of Memphis was recounted by The Chronicle of Higher Education in 2012.
And as far back as the 1980s, faculty and staff have spoken up about illiterate athletes who are pushed through with passing grades to keep up their eligibility to play, while their reading was little addressed.
Linda Bensel-Meyers, who worked for Tennessee until 2003, said a university-hired psychologist would diagnose learning disabilities in athletes and put them in a program without the graduation requirements set for other students.
"Many of the records I looked at revealed that these athletes came to us essentially illiterate and still left the school functionally illiterate," Bensel-Meyers told CNN.
When contacted by CNN, Tennessee did not answer questions.
Then there was Brenda Monk. In 2009, the former Florida State University learning specialist told ESPN's "Outside the Lines" that she was forced to resign from the university as a cheating scandal surfaced in which the NCAA said that tutors were writing papers for athletes and giving them answers to test scores.
Monk denied the allegation that she did too much work for athletes, but she said she saw some of them reading at second- and third-grade levels.
The NCAA levied sanctions against Florida State in 2009, including vacating wins and reduced scholarships.
Florida State did not provide CNN with records in response to our request.
Change ahead?
In December, the Drake Group, which pushes for academic integrity in collegiate sports, organized a lobbying trip to Washington to push for an amendment to the College Education Act of 1965. Director Allen Sack said he wants to see a College Athlete Protection Act -- legislation that would keep athletes on the bench as freshmen if they are academically more than one standard deviation lower than the average student admitted to the university.
"That's unconscionable, to bring in a young athlete who does not fit in the general profile of the student body and have them play football on national television before they've entered the classroom for the first time in the fall," Sack said.
U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania introduced legislation in the House last year that calls for a complete overhaul of the NCAA. When he talked to CNN, he cited the lack of consistency in the way recent NCAA investigations into various improprieties were handled at Auburn, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, Ohio State and Penn State.
"I think (the NCAA) needs to be looked at. I think they need to be reined in," Dent said.
Mary Willingham went on the trip to Washington and said she came back feeling that they could make some progress in bringing change.
Others aren't so confident that a beast as big as collegiate athletics can be tamed.
Of course this isn't news; there's even a scene in "Knute Rockne: All American" where Knute, Bill Spaulding, Pop Warner, Howard Jones, and Alonzo Stagg are grilled by congress over Student-Athletes cheating.
I remember when it came out that Dexter Manley couldn't read when he was playing for the Redskins. I was like 'wait didn't he...go to College'?
Sure enough he spent four years at Oklahoma State University. I wonder what sort of classes he took :lol:
Probably in their honors programs
Michigan just fired their offensive Coordinator: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24402675/michigan-dismisses-offensive-coordinator-al-borges
I hear Major Applewhite will be available soon.
I saw this study. Good academic state schools like UT and UF are routinely granting sports scholarships to grossly deificient candidates. It makes a mockery of the institution. I don't see how an alumnus can watch those games and feel pride about what happens on the field knowing how the sauage is made. While I think Berkut made some points vs. SEC, it is like critiquing the playing of the second violinist on the Titanic as the ship goes down.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2014, 05:51:50 PM
I saw this study. Good academic state schools like UT and UF are routinely granting sports scholarships to grossly deificient candidates. It makes a mockery of the institution. I don't see how an alumnus can watch those games and feel pride about what happens on the field knowing how the sauage is made. While I think Berkut made some points vs. SEC, it is like critiquing the playing of the second violinist on the Titanic as the ship goes down.
It has been this way for over 100 years. It is not like anybody thinks a lot of those guys could qualify without being sports stars. They just have to make the NCAA minimums (I know when I was in school it was a 700 on the SAT) which are significantly lower than what would normally get them into the student body. Naturally plenty of the football guys cannot even get the minimums and have to go play in Community College or Junior College.
I guess I figure you have to at least be minimally literate to make a 700 on the SAT (or whatever the equivalent is today).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2014, 05:51:50 PM
I saw this study. Good academic state schools like UT and UF are routinely granting sports scholarships to grossly deificient candidates. It makes a mockery of the institution. I don't see how an alumnus can watch those games and feel pride about what happens on the field knowing how the sauage is made. While I think Berkut made some points vs. SEC, it is like critiquing the playing of the second violinist on the Titanic as the ship goes down.
85 morons doesn't change anything about the school. And some of them may actually be smart, or learn something along the way.
When I was in the B-school at Notre Dame, group work was heavily emphasized in all classes. The general understanding was that if a football player was in your group, he would basically contribute nothing. Not because he was stupid, but because the time commitments meant he would never make a meeting.
Can't put all the blame for this stuff on the colleges anyhow. The problems start well before then, in the primary and secondary schools. Face it, a lot of these guys shouldn't even be graduating from h.s. in the first place, which would render admission to college a moot point.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2014, 06:00:25 PM
85 morons doesn't change anything about the school.
it means that 85 otherwise meritorious people don't get in. It means as you say below that 85 people will be dead weight. It means the school is sending a message that winning football games is more important than maintaining standards. In my personal opinion, it changes a lot; it certainly changes my view of that institution.
QuoteAnd some of them may actually be smart, or learn something along the way.
When I was in the B-school at Notre Dame, group work was heavily emphasized in all classes. The general understanding was that if a football player was in your group, he would basically contribute nothing. Not because he was stupid, but because the time commitments meant he would never make a meeting.
These two paragraphs are contradictory. What you say at the end suggests that not only will the 85 almost certainly NOT learn anything along the way, but several times that many students who COULD have learned something also will not because the school has chosen to put a higher priority on a game than on its pedagogical mission. So, to continue the Titantic metaphor, the 85 is just the tip of the iceberg
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2014, 06:13:02 PM
it means that 85 otherwise meritorious people don't get in. It means as you say below that 85 people will be dead weight. It means the school is sending a message that winning football games is more important than maintaining standards. In my personal opinion, it changes a lot; it certainly changes my view of that institution.
I assure you football players are not going to impact whether or not anybody else gets in, at least not at UT where incoming classes are in the thousands. And in any case you are talking about hundreds of colleges here that basically do this. Is your opinion of Stanford really hinging on the academic accomplishments of their jocks?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2014, 05:51:50 PM
I saw this study. Good academic state schools like UT and UF are routinely granting sports scholarships to grossly deificient candidates. It makes a mockery of the institution. I don't see how an alumnus can watch those games and feel pride about what happens on the field knowing how the sauage is made. While I think Berkut made some points vs. SEC, it is like critiquing the playing of the second violinist on the Titanic as the ship goes down.
While I wish it were different, many scholar athletes are more athlete than scholar. There are exceptions even at football factories like fsu, who has had starting football stars working on masters degrees, in pre-med, winning a rhodes scholarship etc. I acknowledge that this is typically the exception to the rule.
Nonetheless to suggest that its a mockery to be eschewed by alumni ignores that without money to fund the mission there is no mission. As I best recall the statistics, by 1992, the football program at fsu had generated so much net revenue that it was able to both build a state of the art library and fully pre-fund every academic and athletic scholarship the school had to offer through 2000. When someone who cannot afford college is getting an academic scholarship, someone is still paying the school for the tuition just as the school must still pay its professors. At our land grant universities that someone is typically the scholarship football athlete in football or sometimes basketball (which are the only sports at most schools that run a net positive from a revenue standpoint). When it comes to funding its title 9 obligations it almost universally falls on the football program to fund the scholarships for women's sports, all of which run in the red.
I wish the sausage was better made but there are many very worthy people whose very education depended on that sausage whether they knew it or not.
Well obviously a minority of the scholarship players are serious students. Also programs have significant numbers of walk-ons who were accepted the regular way. Guys like Rudy.
I'm going to speak soley about Notre Dame.
In my opinion, football results in more applications and an overall better student body (offsetting the football players). It also builds a sense of community in the school. There are also the money it brings in (which in Notre Dame's case goes in part to academics).
Aside from that, it has a very big benefit in the alumni community. I've been out of the country, and if I want to see Notre Dame, if it is a big city I just contact the alumni association and they get me the info of the local chapter of the association which is inevitably having a watch party. In terms of networking, that effect really can't be beat.
Not to discount that it is also just a lot of fun for everybody.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2014, 06:16:31 PM
Is your opinion of Stanford really hinging on the academic accomplishments of their jocks?
If Stanford admitted patently unqualified athletes it would definitely affect my opinion of Stanford.
I understand that "everyone does it" (not really true but close enough I suppose) and this has gone on for over a century but those are not legitimate excuses. The fact is that it is getting worse because the competition for the lucrative lottery of NBA/NFL millions is much higher than it was in say the 50s when sports salaries were barely more than good blue collar jobs and because of the corrupting impact of the oceans of media money flowing into the colleges.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2014, 06:27:11 PM
I'm going to speak soley about Notre Dame.
In my opinion, football results in more applications and an overall better student body (offsetting the football players). It also builds a sense of community in the school. There are also the money it brings in (which in Notre Dame's case goes in part to academics).
Aside from that, it has a very big benefit in the alumni community. I've been out of the country, and if I want to see Notre Dame, if it is a big city I just contact the alumni association and they get me the info of the local chapter of the association which is inevitably having a watch party. In terms of networking, that effect really can't be beat.
Not to discount that it is also just a lot of fun for everybody.
You could say the same thing about Army or Navy, or even the Ivies.
None of the benefits you mention would be lost if standards were rigorously enforced and sports scholarships eliminated across the entire NCAA.
Except perhaps the money. There would be less money. And that is really what this is all about.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2014, 06:34:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2014, 06:27:11 PM
I'm going to speak soley about Notre Dame.
In my opinion, football results in more applications and an overall better student body (offsetting the football players). It also builds a sense of community in the school. There are also the money it brings in (which in Notre Dame's case goes in part to academics).
Aside from that, it has a very big benefit in the alumni community. I've been out of the country, and if I want to see Notre Dame, if it is a big city I just contact the alumni association and they get me the info of the local chapter of the association which is inevitably having a watch party. In terms of networking, that effect really can't be beat.
Not to discount that it is also just a lot of fun for everybody.
You could say the same thing about Army or Navy, or even the Ivies.
None of the benefits you mention would be lost if standards were rigorously enforced and sports scholarships eliminated across the entire NCAA.
Except perhaps the money. There would be less money. And that is really what this is all about.
...and where does a public not for profit university spend its net revenues?
1. on professor's salaries to increase the quality of the professor,
2. on buildings,
3. on academic scholarships for the underprivileged but academically deserving,
4. on title 9 scholarships for female students, and
5. on massive research undertakings.
At the end of the day, the net revenue generated from football programs (i.e. the excess over the massive cost of having a major football program) increases the amount of people that the major land grant universities can educate; it impoves the quality of their education; it increases the amount and quality of research to be performed; and it decreases the burden otherwise to be born by the taxpayer because most legislatures decrease funding to the extent that a public university can generate excess revenue. Do away with it and we wind up in a far more elitist world with even greater disparity between the haves and have nots. Again, you may not like how the sausage is made but the sausage is not a bad thing.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2014, 06:34:51 PM
You could say the same thing about Army or Navy, or even the Ivies.
None of the benefits you mention would be lost if standards were rigorously enforced and sports scholarships eliminated across the entire NCAA.
Except perhaps the money. There would be less money. And that is really what this is all about.
The army, navy, and Ivies aren't completely clean in this. The military academies give their players special admission consideration, though obviously not to the extent of the factories. They are also limited by the constraint of making graduates officers.
What kind of standards can be enforced? Anyone who wants to go to college can go to college. My understanding is that the NCAA requirements are something like an 800 SAT score or successful progress in a community college. There are probably football playing colleges that have normal students that scored around the former.
Taking away scholarships just means that players be paid nothing for their labor.
Rasputin,
Those revenues also get spent on lavish coaches salaries and perks, large stadiums and facilities, fat recruitment budgets.
Sure there is a decent chunk of change left over, at least for the more successful programs. It helps when through a helpful loophole in the labor laws, you can run your de facto professional sports league without paying out cash to the labor. Even then, the less successful programs are going to struggle to break even. There is another elistism at work, which gets back to some of berkut's SEC critique.
At the end of the day it comes down to saying whether an evil should be tolerated because of the good that it can produce as a by-product.
There is no way to answer that question purely objectively. But the PSU affair should give reason to pause. The way a supposedly model institution acted at all levels, with official connivance, to protect the money flow at all costs is an object lesson in how deep the corruption can run.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 08, 2014, 06:48:50 PM
The military academies give their players special admission consideration
That is not where the problem lies. Sporting ability can be a valid admission consideration, just as say musical ability or unique life experiences. Admission criteria aren't and shouldn't be 100% academic. But many division I schools have gone far past that line.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2014, 05:51:41 PM
Michigan just fired their offensive Coordinator: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24402675/michigan-dismisses-offensive-coordinator-al-borges
I hear Major Applewhite will be available soon.
Good for Hoke, and the program. Al Borges just wasn't getting the job done.
Now they need to get Jim Harbaugh to take the job.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2014, 07:02:51 PM
Rasputin,
Those revenues also get spent on lavish coaches salaries and perks, large stadiums and facilities, fat recruitment budgets.
Sure there is a decent chunk of change left over, at least for the more successful programs. It helps when through a helpful loophole in the labor laws, you can run your de facto professional sports league without paying out cash to the labor. Even then, the less successful programs are going to struggle to break even. There is another elistism at work, which gets back to some of berkut's SEC critique.
At the end of the day it comes down to saying whether an evil should be tolerated because of the good that it can produce as a by-product.
There is no way to answer that question purely objectively. But the PSU affair should give reason to pause. The way a supposedly model institution acted at all levels, with official connivance, to protect the money flow at all costs is an object lesson in how deep the corruption can run.
first as I was referring to net revenues, the salaries don't matter as they are not part of the net...ultimately, as with any business, management has to decide whether the yield it is receiving justifies the labor cost and in sports, perhaps more than any other business, labor's results are easily measured and the market corrects very quickly
second, its not a free labor pool, the schools give the athlete room board and an education all of which get paid for out of the revenues the program generates all of which have value...indeed putting my daughter through college brings this point home clearly
are there evils that ought to be corrected? sure --but on the whole the football factories educate the masses
psu is indeed the perfect example...what happened there was criminal and the result of those in charge putting their brand ahead of their students...there is no excuse for what psu allowed to occur. We cannot however ignore that that very same football program, before it became corrupt turned a small agricultural college into one of the world's leading research institutions.
lets curb the abuses, do away with the corruption, but not condemn the greatest revenue generators that America's public universities have merely because their football programs have become businesses
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 08, 2014, 02:54:17 PM
My understanding is Texas refuses to sign off on any team that isn't going to build net revenue for the conference what that means obviously is adding the school increases the total conference revenue enough that each of the current team's preserves its current payout--the expectation is just adding Cincy and UCF or something doesn't give you the product necessary to go and negotiate a new TV deal and etc such that you can make that a reality.
That was not just Texas and that was the policy of the old AD, Texas is not some bizarre hive mind. Deloss Dodds is no longer around and I have no idea what Steve Patterson thinks about it. But even if he was for expansion, most of the other schools are not interested in their TV money being decreased, they depend on it far more than Texas does.
Quote from: grumbler on January 08, 2014, 08:00:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2014, 05:51:41 PM
Michigan just fired their offensive Coordinator: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24402675/michigan-dismisses-offensive-coordinator-al-borges
I hear Major Applewhite will be available soon.
Good for Hoke, and the program. Al Borges just wasn't getting the job done.
Now they need to get Jim Harbaugh to take the job.
I am sure he is just waiting by the phone.
Actually it seems they just gave the job to the Alabama OC without even calling Jim. FIRE THE AD
Heh the scuttlebut out of Washington is expect Kiffin to be named OC at Alabama :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2014, 07:02:51 PM
Rasputin,
Those revenues also get spent on lavish coaches salaries and perks, large stadiums and facilities, fat recruitment budgets.
Sure there is a decent chunk of change left over, at least for the more successful programs. It helps when through a helpful loophole in the labor laws, you can run your de facto professional sports league without paying out cash to the labor. Even then, the less successful programs are going to struggle to break even. There is another elistism at work, which gets back to some of berkut's SEC critique.
At the end of the day it comes down to saying whether an evil should be tolerated because of the good that it can produce as a by-product.
There is no way to answer that question purely objectively. But the PSU affair should give reason to pause. The way a supposedly model institution acted at all levels, with official connivance, to protect the money flow at all costs is an object lesson in how deep the corruption can run.
It is tolerated because it is an old institution as old as the Universities themselves (Well almost as old) with huge political and cultural importance. You are basically saying our traditions and entire foundation of our Universities going back into the 19th century are evil. They may be but it is kind of hard, if not impossible, to throw off something so cherished and beloved and foundational to those Universities. Saying it is only about the money really misses the major factors at play here and frankly is baffling and hilariously out of touch. You think the Penn State fans rallied around the University because they give a damn about the revenues or because they love sex offenders? You clearly do not get it. You might as well be demanding we cancel Christmas to alot of these places.
I am in favor of major reforms, basically detaching the teams from the Student Bodies and only allowing those who qualify to actually attend classes and paying the players for their services. But you have to be really careful because no politician would risk the rage and fury of the population if you tried to take away something like College Football. There might just be an insurrection.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2014, 06:31:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2014, 06:16:31 PM
Is your opinion of Stanford really hinging on the academic accomplishments of their jocks?
If Stanford admitted patently unqualified athletes it would definitely affect my opinion of Stanford.
Well you should know while they have standards a bit higher than most almost none of those players would be admitted to Stanford normally, same with Berkeley.
Quote from: Valmy on January 08, 2014, 11:38:03 PM
I am sure he is just waiting by the phone.
Actually it seems they just gave the job to the Alabama OC without even calling Jim. FIRE THE AD
That's an interesting hire. Nussmeier was seen as the ideal candidate but unavailable; seems, though, that Saban was looking to get rid of him anyway. The question will be; how long can Michigan keep him? He seems like a sure-fire HC candidate in the next year or two.
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 12:09:10 AM
I am in favor of major reforms, basically detaching the teams from the Student Bodies and only allowing those who qualify to actually attend classes and paying the players for their services. But you have to be really careful because no politician would risk the rage and fury of the population if you tried to take away something like College Football. There might just be an insurrection.
I've never understood this mentality. Why would a university be interested in getting into the professional football and basketball businesses, and how could such professional (or semi-pro) leagues as you propose possibly prosper? Almost all of the athletic departments lose money right now; detaching football and basketball from the student body and making them separate profit centers would screw over every sport at every university, because football and basketball subsidize the rest of the sports.
I think meaningful reform involves making the obligate themselves to supporting student-athletes through graduation (no matter how long that takes) and reforming standards of admission so that you don't allow athletes who can't perform as students to be admitted to university. Taking those steps would obligate the NBA and NFL to establish some pipeline for high school graduates who can't make it through college, just as baseball and hockey do now. And the NFL and NBA are the people who should be taking on that responsibility, not universities.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 08:46:53 AM
I think meaningful reform involves making the obligate themselves to supporting student-athletes through graduation (no matter how long that takes) and reforming standards of admission so that you don't allow athletes who can't perform as students to be admitted to university. Taking those steps would obligate the NBA and NFL to establish some pipeline for high school graduates who can't make it through college, just as baseball and hockey do now. And the NFL and NBA are the people who should be taking on that responsibility, not universities.
As long as football and basketball teams are attached to the school I don't think you'll get meaningful reforms as far as entry requirements for athletes. There's way too much interest and money to stop schools from enrolling that high school player with the 4.5 40 and a terrible academic record. I think the better way, if schools just have to have these programs, is to take out the student from student-athlete. Let them play for the school, but they aren't enrolled in the academic program (and won't get a degree) unless they could get in with "athleticism blind" admissions.
As far as the NFL and the NBA creating a separate feeder program, I think you'll find colleges and the NCAA fighting them tooth and nail over any such thing. They wouldn't want to lose their recruits to an outside organization.
Quote from: Rasputin on January 07, 2014, 07:31:06 AM
Wow. On way to lax to return. Amazing game. Amazing stadium. Aar to follow
AAR? How was the energy in that stadium?
Quote from: frunk on January 09, 2014, 09:14:43 AM
As far as the NFL and the NBA creating a separate feeder program, I think you'll find colleges and the NCAA fighting them tooth and nail over any such thing. They wouldn't want to lose their recruits to an outside organization.
LOL the NBA and NFL would be fighting tooth and nail if the NCAA ever threatened to go away and force them to develop feeder programs on their own. Granted they have created development leagues (like the WLAF or the D-League) but if the NCAA went away they would have to create them on a massive scale and those development leagues are not exactly cash cows.
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 09:30:51 AM
LOL the NBA and NFL would be fighting tooth and nail if the NCAA ever threatened to go away and force them to develop feeder programs on their own. Granted they have created development leagues (like the WLAF or the D-League) but if the NCAA went away they would have to create them on a massive scale and those development leagues are not exactly cash cows.
A separate feeder program could probably be run with greater efficiency than the current college system, which incorporates way more athletes than the NFL would ever need. Chances are the better players would get better quicker with a dedicated feeder system, with stronger coaching and tougher opposition instead of the diluted system at the collegiate level.
Quote from: frunk on January 09, 2014, 09:55:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 09:30:51 AM
LOL the NBA and NFL would be fighting tooth and nail if the NCAA ever threatened to go away and force them to develop feeder programs on their own. Granted they have created development leagues (like the WLAF or the D-League) but if the NCAA went away they would have to create them on a massive scale and those development leagues are not exactly cash cows.
A separate feeder program could probably be run with greater efficiency than the current college system, which incorporates way more athletes than the NFL would ever need. Chances are the better players would get better quicker with a dedicated feeder system, with stronger coaching and tougher opposition instead of the diluted system at the collegiate level.
Well you will have to convince the NFL of that not me. They have bent over backwards to work with the NCAA as much as possible specifically so they wouldn't have to bother with the massive expense of running feeder programs.
Quote from: frunk on January 09, 2014, 09:55:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 09:30:51 AM
LOL the NBA and NFL would be fighting tooth and nail if the NCAA ever threatened to go away and force them to develop feeder programs on their own. Granted they have created development leagues (like the WLAF or the D-League) but if the NCAA went away they would have to create them on a massive scale and those development leagues are not exactly cash cows.
A separate feeder program could probably be run with greater efficiency than the current college system, which incorporates way more athletes than the NFL would ever need. Chances are the better players would get better quicker with a dedicated feeder system, with stronger coaching and tougher opposition instead of the diluted system at the collegiate level.
I don't think that is even vaguely true. In fact, it has largely been tried, and is likely even being done right now with things like the NBA D League. The quality of play is probably a little higher, but I do not think that you get anywhere near the coaching that you get at the major D1 level, simply because there isn't any money in it.
If you are a great coach, you aren't hanging out in the D League making relative pennies when you could be making millions in the NBA or major D1 level.
All this talk of "feeder" systems misses one rather important fact:
College football works - it generates revenues and pays for itself and then some for the schools involved. It is setup the way it is because that is what the people who pay for it (fans) and the people who run it (school administrators) want, and it is a *product* that has a proven value in the marketplace.
It is just silly to think that they should throw away that product and replace it with one that we can be pretty sure nobody will want to buy...for what reason, exactly?
Quote from: frunk on January 09, 2014, 09:14:43 AM
As long as football and basketball teams are attached to the school I don't think you'll get meaningful reforms as far as entry requirements for athletes. There's way too much interest and money to stop schools from enrolling that high school player with the 4.5 40 and a terrible academic record. I think the better way, if schools just have to have these programs, is to take out the student from student-athlete. Let them play for the school, but they aren't enrolled in the academic program (and won't get a degree) unless they could get in with "athleticism blind" admissions.
I don't see any motive for universities to make their athletes professionals. Most universities lose money on athletics as is; adding in player salaries (even if you can get rid of some tuition-scholarship money) isn't an attractive option for most schools.
The interest and money comes to schools from having teams, not from having specific athletes. College football did just fine in the era before they started accepting functional illiterates to play football or basketball for them, and would do just fine if there was a semi-pro league that took the top 5% (or whatever) of high school football or basketball players.
The better way is for schools to increase their admission standards by NCAA regulation, and then play with the student-athletes they can get. Having pro teams would cost them all the fans they have who just want to watch college football, without gaining them much from the people who like pro football (and who can watch the NFL, instead).
QuoteAs far as the NFL and the NBA creating a separate feeder program, I think you'll find colleges and the NCAA fighting them tooth and nail over any such thing. They wouldn't want to lose their recruits to an outside organization.
Nope. The system works just fine for, say, hockey and baseball. As long as the competition is fair, it doesn't matter if the top players in baseball or hockey are playing for the minor leagues or the universities. The same would be true of football and basketball.
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: frunk on January 09, 2014, 09:55:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 09:30:51 AM
LOL the NBA and NFL would be fighting tooth and nail if the NCAA ever threatened to go away and force them to develop feeder programs on their own. Granted they have created development leagues (like the WLAF or the D-League) but if the NCAA went away they would have to create them on a massive scale and those development leagues are not exactly cash cows.
A separate feeder program could probably be run with greater efficiency than the current college system, which incorporates way more athletes than the NFL would ever need. Chances are the better players would get better quicker with a dedicated feeder system, with stronger coaching and tougher opposition instead of the diluted system at the collegiate level.
Well you will have to convince the NFL of that not me. They have bent over backwards to work with the NCAA as much as possible specifically so they wouldn't have to bother with the massive expense of running feeder programs.
I think they also found that they simply are not economically viable. They spent a gigantic pile of cash trying to get a minor-league type system working in Europe (where obviously there isn't a school level infrastructure in place for American football) and found that they just could not make it work financially. It lost money hand over fist.
Fans are fans - by definition they have to have some cultural affinity for being fans. That can be provided in a number of different ways, but for college football it is allegiance to the school. That might be the school you went to, or your dad went to, or the local school, or whatever. But it needs to be some kind of shared emotional attachment.
That exists for college sports right now. And whether it ought to or not, it is a hugely powerful market force. You cannot simply replace it with a "feeder" league, and expect anyone to give two shits about it. The University of Arizona School of Football (Denver Broncos affiliate) is not the same thing.
If you replaced the current system with something else, you would not really be replacing the current system at all - you would be discarding the current system, and creating a new one that nobody would care about. Just like the NBA D-League. At best, you could hope for the level of support you see for AAA baseball, but even that would be unlikely, since minor league baseball, for as tepid as it's support base it, is at least based on decades and decades of history.
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 09:57:11 AM
Well you will have to convince the NFL of that not me. They have bent over backwards to work with the NCAA as much as possible specifically so they wouldn't have to bother with the massive expense of running feeder programs.
Agreed, but if the colleges passed rules that increased minimum student-athlete academic standards, then the NFL and NBA would have to create some alternative for the players whom they want to see developed, but who can't get into college.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 10:07:13 AM
Nope. The system works just fine for, say, hockey and baseball. As long as the competition is fair, it doesn't matter if the top players in baseball or hockey are playing for the minor leagues or the universities. The same would be true of football and basketball.
But college hockey and baseball are not even remotely as popular as basketball and football, not even as a function of their popularity at the professional level.
And I think a lot of that is very much because everyone knows that if you are a very good baseball player, even if you aren't MLB level good, you are going to go play in the pro's rather than college. The "path" for the better players (and again, I am not even talking about the best players) is high school, minor league, then maybe MLB. Some go to college, but mostly not, and I think that is one of the reasons college baseball will never really be all that popular.
Contrast this with college basketball, where even though the very best players may not play college ball (and the very best who do won't stay long), the "B" level high school players all still go to college, and you still get a very high level of play in college. I think if college basketball lost most of those players to a professional minor league system like what you see in baseball, the overall interest in college basketball would take a hit.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 10:13:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 09:57:11 AM
Well you will have to convince the NFL of that not me. They have bent over backwards to work with the NCAA as much as possible specifically so they wouldn't have to bother with the massive expense of running feeder programs.
Agreed, but if the colleges passed rules that increased minimum student-athlete academic standards, then the NFL and NBA would have to create some alternative for the players whom they want to see developed, but who can't get into college.
The NBA at least has some options already, with the D-League, and multiple second tier professional leagues in Canada and Europe that could "season" players. And I think this happens already. Sadly, one of the effects of this is that there are a lot of very good high school basketball players who think they could make it in the NBA, who *could* have solid college careers and a free education, who shoot for the stars instead and end up with nothing.
The NFL...I don't see how they could make it work. There has been a few attempts at creating a economically viable "minor" league of football, but they've all been failures.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2014, 07:02:51 PM
Rasputin,
Those revenues also get spent on lavish coaches salaries and perks, large stadiums and facilities, fat recruitment budgets.
Sure there is a decent chunk of change left over, at least for the more successful programs. It helps when through a helpful loophole in the labor laws, you can run your de facto professional sports league without paying out cash to the labor. Even then, the less successful programs are going to struggle to break even. There is another elistism at work, which gets back to some of berkut's SEC critique.
At the end of the day it comes down to saying whether an evil should be tolerated because of the good that it can produce as a by-product.
There is no way to answer that question purely objectively. But the PSU affair should give reason to pause. The way a supposedly model institution acted at all levels, with official connivance, to protect the money flow at all costs is an object lesson in how deep the corruption can run.
Every sport is ultimately going to have a feeder system to the highest level. In international soccer, you have promising youths pulled into soccer academies at a young age to focus on the sport. In American baseball, to the extent the college system isn't used, you have minor league teams that people join out of high school.
The problem in both of those systems is that the guys that don't make it into the professional ranks, or make it into the professional ranks but don't earn and save enough to live the rest of their lives, are left uneducated and without major marketable skills.
For all the criticism, the system used in football is probably the best system out there. While many guys may not take advantage of the education they get, many do. There is some criticism of college football that the players bring in huge revenue but only get scholarships. I won't say that is totally unfair, but a truely professional model won't work in college athletics and ultimately the association with the colleges is what brings in the revenue. For instance, the D League in the NBA may actually be a better product skill wise than NCAA basketball, but it doesn't have nearly the fan interest. It is hard to envision a minor league system for the NFL drawing in excess of 100k to many games and getting such extensive television coverage.
As for the schools comprimising themselves, I don't see the harm in saying, "Football players bring in extensive revenue to this school and more than pay for their scholarships. We will accept quite marginal applicants that can contribute to the football team, and educate them to the best of our ability. Some will be able to earn degrees, some will not. For those that can not, we will still give them the best educational opportunities we can."
Gotta agree with Dorsey.
I for one do not think college athletes should be paid, for example. Or rather, I don't think they should be paid specifically as if they were not paid now, because they ARE paid now.
The argument that it is not economically reasonable to not have to pay athletes simply fails on even the most basic economic principles.
If in fact the athletes were not compensated for their time and efforts in a manner that is valuable and worthwhile...then why are there literally hundreds of "applicants" for each potential position? Of course the answer is because they all know perfectly well that what they get out of a college athletic scholarship is worth a rather large amount. If any particular athlete feels it is not worth it for them, that the schools keep more than they should, there is a very, very simple solution for them: don't accept a scholarship until one is offered more to your liking, or go sell your services elsewhere (and certainly in some cases many athletes make exactly that choice, and more power to them).
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 10:07:13 AM
Nope. The system works just fine for, say, hockey and baseball. As long as the competition is fair, it doesn't matter if the top players in baseball or hockey are playing for the minor leagues or the universities. The same would be true of football and basketball.
Baseball is completely different culturally. It has always (well since the 1870s anyway) been about the pro teams. The Major Leagues always scouted the College teams for players but it was always mainly about the dozens of pro and semi-pro leagues that existed across the country. College Baseball was never really a thing, most histories of Baseball in America will never even mention it. The Minor League system is relatively recent (the 1930s I think?) but the idea of minor pro teams is very old with a devoted fanbase and has functioned well for decades and it never had to compete with the University teams. The pro and College seasons take place at slightly different times, only overlapping in April and May. College Baseball is entirely a Spring thing while pro Baseball is primarily played in the summer.
The NFL and NBA, on the other hand, only came into existence because of the success of College Football and Basketball.
It is one of the biggest reasons I love College Baseball, most of the players are there because they want to play for Texas or at least get an education. The big-timers with serious major league ambitions or guys who have no interest in going to College just go right to the Minor Leagues. College Baseball is small potatoes though with none of the huge cultural significance of College Football or Basketball.
I don't know anything about College Hockey I admit.
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 10:30:05 AM
If in fact the athletes were not compensated for their time and efforts in a manner that is valuable and worthwhile...then why are there literally hundreds of "applicants" for each potential position? Of course the answer is because they all know perfectly well that what they get out of a college athletic scholarship is worth a rather large amount. If any particular athlete feels it is not worth it for them, that the schools keep more than they should, there is a very, very simple solution for them: don't accept a scholarship until one is offered more to your liking, or go sell your services elsewhere (and certainly in some cases many athletes make exactly that choice, and more power to them).
Just curious how often does the NFL take players who have never played College Football? I am sure there are a few but I cannot think of any off the top of my head. The NCAA and NFL have a pretty closed system.
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 10:18:56 AM
But college hockey and baseball are not even remotely as popular as basketball and football, not even as a function of their popularity at the professional level.
This is probably true of baseball, but is definitely not true of hockey. Hockey is big (where they play it).
QuoteAnd I think a lot of that is very much because everyone knows that if you are a very good baseball player, even if you aren't MLB level good, you are going to go play in the pro's rather than college. The "path" for the better players (and again, I am not even talking about the best players) is high school, minor league, then maybe MLB. Some go to college, but mostly not, and I think that is one of the reasons college baseball will never really be all that popular.
I think that the problem is that college baseball has never gotten out of the shadow of the pros. They play on the same days, in the same seasons, and only the college fanatic would rather see a college game than a pro game. the best college baseball teams out-perform the best minor league baseball teams when it comes to attendance, though. [edit: I was incorrect; they don't really have the same seasons.
QuoteContrast this with college basketball, where even though the very best players may not play college ball (and the very best who do won't stay long), the "B" level high school players all still go to college, and you still get a very high level of play in college. I think if college basketball lost most of those players to a professional minor league system like what you see in baseball, the overall interest in college basketball would take a hit.
I don't agree. Survey after survey has shown that college fans don't care as much about the quality of play as about the other factors that feature in the college games. Winning was only the fifth-most important reason why fans followed a college team in basketball, according to IPSOS http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=9301 (http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=9301).
Now, of course, if you want to define "take a hit" as
any decline in fan attendance or TV interest, then I can't argue with that. But that would certainly be a price worth paying to get the crap out of the college system.
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 10:40:01 AM
Just curious how often does the NFL take players who have never played College Football? I am sure there are a few but I cannot think of any off the top of my head. The NCAA and NFL have a pretty closed system.
They'll occasionally pop up on practice rosters and such, but it isn't a regular thing. Some team just picked up a guy who had only played rugby or something pretty recently. UTSA actually had a player on the.....Cowboys roster, I think it was, before they even had a football team. One of those track guys that get looked at to be a WR because they're fast as hell.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 10:55:55 AM
This is probably true of baseball, but is definitely not true of hockey. Hockey is big (where they play it).
59 whole schools. That is a pretty small number. The top 25 is not much of an honor eh?
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 10:07:13 AM
Quote from: frunk on January 09, 2014, 09:14:43 AM
As long as football and basketball teams are attached to the school I don't think you'll get meaningful reforms as far as entry requirements for athletes. There's way too much interest and money to stop schools from enrolling that high school player with the 4.5 40 and a terrible academic record. I think the better way, if schools just have to have these programs, is to take out the student from student-athlete. Let them play for the school, but they aren't enrolled in the academic program (and won't get a degree) unless they could get in with "athleticism blind" admissions.
I don't see any motive for universities to make their athletes professionals. Most universities lose money on athletics as is; adding in player salaries (even if you can get rid of some tuition-scholarship money) isn't an attractive option for most schools.
The interest and money comes to schools from having teams, not from having specific athletes. College football did just fine in the era before they started accepting functional illiterates to play football or basketball for them, and would do just fine if there was a semi-pro league that took the top 5% (or whatever) of high school football or basketball players.
The better way is for schools to increase their admission standards by NCAA regulation, and then play with the student-athletes they can get. Having pro teams would cost them all the fans they have who just want to watch college football, without gaining them much from the people who like pro football (and who can watch the NFL, instead).
Of course they don't want professional athletes, that would be way more expensive. I also didn't say the program had to be strictly professional, just that if an athlete doesn't meet the academic standard then they can play for the team but not be at the school.
It's true that it's the attachment to the school that attracts the attention not the athletes, but there's a big caveat there. If the school isn't competitive at the level that it is at (doesn't get the best players it can), particularly if this lasts for an extended time, then see how the interest and money dry up. It's an arms race in effect. The only way the schools would stop recruiting every athlete they can get regardless of academic ability is if it was imposed from above, and the NCAA isn't going to do it in any real sense and the government definitely shouldn't do it.
Quote from: lustindarkness on January 09, 2014, 09:25:31 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on January 07, 2014, 07:31:06 AM
Wow. On way to lax to return. Amazing game. Amazing stadium. Aar to follow
AAR? How was the energy in that stadium?
ive never had a more amazing game day experience...i plan to post some details and pics
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 10:01:09 AM
I don't think that is even vaguely true. In fact, it has largely been tried, and is likely even being done right now with things like the NBA D League. The quality of play is probably a little higher, but I do not think that you get anywhere near the coaching that you get at the major D1 level, simply because there isn't any money in it.
If you are a great coach, you aren't hanging out in the D League making relative pennies when you could be making millions in the NBA or major D1 level.
All this talk of "feeder" systems misses one rather important fact:
College football works - it generates revenues and pays for itself and then some for the schools involved. It is setup the way it is because that is what the people who pay for it (fans) and the people who run it (school administrators) want, and it is a *product* that has a proven value in the marketplace.
It is just silly to think that they should throw away that product and replace it with one that we can be pretty sure nobody will want to buy...for what reason, exactly?
It doesn't work precisely because it has massive competition from the college system. If college athletics disappeared tomorrow then a feeder league would be perfectly viable (and would appear quite quickly), but it's tough to fight something that has this much investment and interest with another product.
Quote from: Rasputin on January 09, 2014, 11:54:29 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on January 09, 2014, 09:25:31 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on January 07, 2014, 07:31:06 AM
Wow. On way to lax to return. Amazing game. Amazing stadium. Aar to follow
AAR? How was the energy in that stadium?
ive never had a more amazing game day experience...i plan to post some details and pics
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 10:40:01 AM
Just curious how often does the NFL take players who have never played College Football? I am sure there are a few but I cannot think of any off the top of my head. The NCAA and NFL have a pretty closed system.
I remember seeing some community college players.
Quote from: frunk on January 09, 2014, 11:56:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 10:01:09 AM
I don't think that is even vaguely true. In fact, it has largely been tried, and is likely even being done right now with things like the NBA D League. The quality of play is probably a little higher, but I do not think that you get anywhere near the coaching that you get at the major D1 level, simply because there isn't any money in it.
If you are a great coach, you aren't hanging out in the D League making relative pennies when you could be making millions in the NBA or major D1 level.
All this talk of "feeder" systems misses one rather important fact:
College football works - it generates revenues and pays for itself and then some for the schools involved. It is setup the way it is because that is what the people who pay for it (fans) and the people who run it (school administrators) want, and it is a *product* that has a proven value in the marketplace.
It is just silly to think that they should throw away that product and replace it with one that we can be pretty sure nobody will want to buy...for what reason, exactly?
It doesn't work precisely because it has massive competition from the college system. If college athletics disappeared tomorrow then a feeder league would be perfectly viable (and would appear quite quickly), but it's tough to fight something that has this much investment and interest with another product.
Your wrong. Completely wrong.
People are fans of college <insert sport here> because they are fans of the colleges, not because they are fans of the particular sport being played at a less than top tier professional level.
If the University of Arizona nixed their basketball team tomorrow, the attention I pay to Arizona basketball would NOT shift to some minor league professional team. If anything, it would shift to a NBA team, at best, and most likely I would simply spend that time on some other activity. For myself, I don't care for the NBA, and I would care for D-League NBA even less than the NBA.
People are not fans of college sports because they have some gap that isn't being filled by major league professional sports, that would or could be filled by minor league professional sports.
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 12:11:54 PM
Your wrong. Completely wrong.
People are fans of college <insert sport here> because they are fans of the colleges, not because they are fans of the particular sport being played at a less than top tier professional level.
If the University of Arizona nixed their basketball team tomorrow, the attention I pay to Arizona basketball would NOT shift to some minor league professional team. If anything, it would shift to a NBA team, at best, and most likely I would simply spend that time on some other activity. For myself, I don't care for the NBA, and I would care for D-League NBA even less than the NBA.
People are not fans of college sports because they have some gap that isn't being filled by major league professional sports, that would or could be filled by minor league professional sports.
Who's talking about popularity or it replacing college enthusiasm? I'm talking about a feeder and development league for the pros. It doesn't have to be a massive 600+ team system that satisfies your desire to root for a team, it has to develop and nurture talent for the NFL and NBA.
Quote from: frunk on January 09, 2014, 12:19:14 PM
Who's talking about popularity or it replacing college enthusiasm? I'm talking about a feeder and development league for the pros. It doesn't have to be a massive 600+ team system that satisfies your desire to root for a team, it has to develop and nurture talent for the NFL and NBA.
Wouldn't it be? There are almost 300 Minor League baseball teams and they do not need as many players per team as the NFL.
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 12:23:30 PM
Wouldn't it be? There are almost 300 Minor League baseball teams and they do not need as many players per team as the NFL.
I don't think players per team enters into how many teams would be needed. Only a small fraction of minor league baseball players make it to the majors, so I think the number of minor league teams is in excess of function (if that's their function). Presumably people want to go to minor league baseball games so that's how many minor league teams you end up with.
Quote from: frunk on January 09, 2014, 12:19:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 12:11:54 PM
Your wrong. Completely wrong.
People are fans of college <insert sport here> because they are fans of the colleges, not because they are fans of the particular sport being played at a less than top tier professional level.
If the University of Arizona nixed their basketball team tomorrow, the attention I pay to Arizona basketball would NOT shift to some minor league professional team. If anything, it would shift to a NBA team, at best, and most likely I would simply spend that time on some other activity. For myself, I don't care for the NBA, and I would care for D-League NBA even less than the NBA.
People are not fans of college sports because they have some gap that isn't being filled by major league professional sports, that would or could be filled by minor league professional sports.
Who's talking about popularity or it replacing college enthusiasm? I'm talking about a feeder and development league for the pros. It doesn't have to be a massive 600+ team system that satisfies your desire to root for a team, it has to develop and nurture talent for the NFL and NBA.
It has to be financially viable as well. It has to "work" as a league in its own right, at least to some extent.
Like I said, what you propose is fine if you want to propose a system that just destroys college sports altogether. But if that is the case, who cares who it is done?
You are arguing like there is some compelling argument being made that we have to preserve college sports for the sake of the major professional leagues, and that argument is being made by people who care about college athletics, as if your typical college sports fan is a college fan because they want to make sure the NFL has a good way of developing players.
But this has been my point in response to your posts (and maybe you don't even disagree with it, and maybe you don't even care):
Proposing a means to replace a particular function of college sports (evaluating and preparing players for a professional career) as an argument for why it would be ok to get rid of college sports is kind of, well, irrelevant. It's like arguing that it would be ok to ban bicycles because people could still get exercise by cross country skiing. It might be true, but who cares? Certainly not the people who care about riding bicycles.
This is just a bit of an aside to the debate, but one I thought interesting enough to include.
I've been reading A Great Game, by Stephen Harper (yes, THAT Stephen Harper), which tells about the origins of professional hockey in Canada generally, but Toronto more specifically. I bring it up because, without any possible doubt, the major issue facing hockey in it's early days was whether it would be an amateur sport, or a professional sport. The rules from Day One were that it was to be played by amateurs, and there were various stories (seemingly familiar if you're familiar with NCAA athletics) of players being kicked out of hockey for all time for something as trifling as receiving a $10 gold coin as a gift after winning a big game.
But seemingly from Day Two, amateurism was recognized with a wink and a nod - players would move around the country seemingly at a moments whim in order to play for the bigger clubs with wealthier backers.
Then, some rival pro teams and pro leagues were springing up as well (all those talented players kicked out of hockey were still good, and had nothing to lose by being full professionals).
Eventually, both the competition and the sheer hypocrisy of the situation seems to have prevailed (I haven't finished the book yet), as fairly quickly hockey (and the Stanley Cup) became the purview of exclusively professional teams.
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 11:16:30 AM
59 whole schools. That is a pretty small number. The top 25 is not much of an honor eh?
There are something like 130 college hockey teams. Still not a huge number, but so what?
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 12:54:00 PM
Eventually, both the competition and the sheer hypocrisy of the situation seems to have prevailed (I haven't finished the book yet), as fairly quickly hockey (and the Stanley Cup) became the purview of exclusively professional teams.
That is pretty much what happened in Baseball as well.
Any semblence of amateur spirit is dead in this country. With very few exceptions, the players are aspiring professionals (or at least would turn pro with a chance).
I only think amateurism should remain for competitive reasons. There are ~130 teams at college football's highest level, and while I think that is too many and some are hopelessly uncompetitive, the large number of teams is a major reason the sport is popular. Most people have ties to some college that plays in the FBS (even if they never went to college, maybe they live in the area of one, or have family that did).
Revenue, however, is grossly unequal. Some schools bring in obscene amounts, but most schools are struggling to break even. If you lost amateurism altogether, you could end up with only a handful of schools really competitive at the highest level. And then you've just killed what makes college football so popular, and the ultimate golden goose even of the profitable schools.
Quote from: frunk on January 09, 2014, 11:53:47 AM
Of course they don't want professional athletes, that would be way more expensive. I also didn't say the program had to be strictly professional, just that if an athlete doesn't meet the academic standard then they can play for the team but not be at the school.
But your "solution" solves nothing, and adds all kinds of additional down sides. What would possibly motivate a university to engage in such a business venture?
QuoteIt's true that it's the attachment to the school that attracts the attention not the athletes, but there's a big caveat there. If the school isn't competitive at the level that it is at (doesn't get the best players it can), particularly if this lasts for an extended time, then see how the interest and money dry up. It's an arms race in effect. The only way the schools would stop recruiting every athlete they can get regardless of academic ability is if it was imposed from above, and the NCAA isn't going to do it in any real sense and the government definitely shouldn't do it.
You are engaging in the fallacy that the NCAA isn't the schools' collective creation. Saying that universities would only do something if it was "it was imposed from above" and then mention the NCAA as though it was "above" the schools is to misunderstand the entire nature of the NCAA. If the school presidents want to do something, they are the decision-makers for the NCAA. All it takes is the decision by the leading schools to do it, and it will be done. The presidents care about fair competition, not quarterback ratings.
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 12:54:00 PM
This is just a bit of an aside to the debate, but one I thought interesting enough to include.
I've been reading A Great Game, by Stephen Harper (yes, THAT Stephen Harper), which tells about the origins of professional hockey in Canada generally, but Toronto more specifically. I bring it up because, without any possible doubt, the major issue facing hockey in it's early days was whether it would be an amateur sport, or a professional sport. The rules from Day One were that it was to be played by amateurs, and there were various stories (seemingly familiar if you're familiar with NCAA athletics) of players being kicked out of hockey for all time for something as trifling as receiving a $10 gold coin as a gift after winning a big game.
But seemingly from Day Two, amateurism was recognized with a wink and a nod - players would move around the country seemingly at a moments whim in order to play for the bigger clubs with wealthier backers.
Then, some rival pro teams and pro leagues were springing up as well (all those talented players kicked out of hockey were still good, and had nothing to lose by being full professionals).
Eventually, both the competition and the sheer hypocrisy of the situation seems to have prevailed (I haven't finished the book yet), as fairly quickly hockey (and the Stanley Cup) became the purview of exclusively professional teams.
This isn't true. There are a lot of (90? 100?) college and university hockey teams in Canada.
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 11:16:30 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 10:55:55 AM
This is probably true of baseball, but is definitely not true of hockey. Hockey is big (where they play it).
59 whole schools. That is a pretty small number. The top 25 is not much of an honor eh?
It's better than being in the bottom 34. ;)
Hockey benefits from having a following that's concentrated geographically. More than half the college hockey teams are found in just four states (Massachusetts, New York, Michigan and Minnesota.) So there are many nearby rivalries and in many cases hockey is the school's only division one sport.
Is "Interuniversity" hockey big in Canada?
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 01:15:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 12:54:00 PM
This is just a bit of an aside to the debate, but one I thought interesting enough to include.
I've been reading A Great Game, by Stephen Harper (yes, THAT Stephen Harper), which tells about the origins of professional hockey in Canada generally, but Toronto more specifically. I bring it up because, without any possible doubt, the major issue facing hockey in it's early days was whether it would be an amateur sport, or a professional sport. The rules from Day One were that it was to be played by amateurs, and there were various stories (seemingly familiar if you're familiar with NCAA athletics) of players being kicked out of hockey for all time for something as trifling as receiving a $10 gold coin as a gift after winning a big game.
But seemingly from Day Two, amateurism was recognized with a wink and a nod - players would move around the country seemingly at a moments whim in order to play for the bigger clubs with wealthier backers.
Then, some rival pro teams and pro leagues were springing up as well (all those talented players kicked out of hockey were still good, and had nothing to lose by being full professionals).
Eventually, both the competition and the sheer hypocrisy of the situation seems to have prevailed (I haven't finished the book yet), as fairly quickly hockey (and the Stanley Cup) became the purview of exclusively professional teams.
This isn't true. There are a lot of (90? 100?) college and university hockey teams in Canada.
But college/university hockey (at least in Canada) has followed the model of baseball. Anyone with any serious interest in playing professional hockey does not bother with CIS hockey (of which there are only 36 teams), they instead play in the major junior CHL leagues. IN the CHL the players get paid an absolutely ridiculously tiny stipend which is almost as exploitative as the NCAA (perhaps more so since in the CHL you're dealing with kids as young as 16), but they are "professionals".
CIS hockey is where CHL players go when they realize they're not good enough to play pro hockey, and want to try and make something else of their lives.
BUt if your point was the patently obvious one that "yes, people in Canada play hockey without being paid", then yes you are correct. There are uncounted numbers of rec hockey leagues throughout the country, together with CIS, high school, and other leagues.
Quote from: Savonarola on January 09, 2014, 01:22:25 PM
Is "Interuniversity" hockey big in Canada?
Not really. University teams will get a small amount of coverage, a few hundred to a couple thousand fans at games, but the major developmental league is major junior hockey.
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on January 09, 2014, 01:22:25 PM
Is "Interuniversity" hockey big in Canada?
Not really. University teams will get a small amount of coverage, a few hundred to a couple thousand fans at games, but the major developmental league is major junior hockey.
Now that I am Dorsey again, I can finally say fuck you for stealing our hockey team. :ultra:
Actually, no one really cared except to comment that it sucks we aren't a 4 sport city anymore. Which is probably why we lost the team.
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on January 09, 2014, 01:22:25 PM
Is "Interuniversity" hockey big in Canada?
Not really. University teams will get a small amount of coverage, a few hundred to a couple thousand fans at games, but the major developmental league is major junior hockey.
Heh, a couple thousand would be the entire student body at some of the colleges with hockey teams in the United States.
Thanks, I had heard hockey announcers talk about the CHL a good deal, but never about the CIS so I had wondered.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 09, 2014, 01:30:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on January 09, 2014, 01:22:25 PM
Is "Interuniversity" hockey big in Canada?
Not really. University teams will get a small amount of coverage, a few hundred to a couple thousand fans at games, but the major developmental league is major junior hockey.
Now that I am Dorsey again, I can finally say fuck you for stealing our hockey team. :ultra:
Actually, no one really cared except to comment that it sucks we aren't a 4 sport city anymore. Which is probably why we lost the team.
We didn't steal your team - nobody in Atlanta wanted them. Seriously, the local ownership group (which also owned the Hawks and Phillips Arena) wanted them out, figuring they could make more money without a hockey team.
The good news is that back in 2011-2012 I got to see the Battle of Atlanta - the former Atlanta Flames play the former Atlanta Thrashers. :D
Yessssssss it's official: Bobby Petrino back to Lville.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24403353/bobby-petrino-says-louisville-is-his-destination-job
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 01:50:12 PM
We didn't steal your team - nobody in Atlanta wanted them. Seriously, the local ownership group (which also owned the Hawks and Phillips Arena) wanted them out, figuring they could make more money without a hockey team.
The good news is that back in 2011-2012 I got to see the Battle of Atlanta - the former Atlanta Flames play the former Atlanta Thrashers. :D
I used to go to some of the games. It was a good excuse to drink. Basically no one in the arena knew the rules and was just there to drink and watch the fights.
I felt bad for the players. You reach the pinnacle of your sport and no one knew who you were or anything about what you did. Some of the guys might have liked that though.
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 12:09:10 AM
. You think the Penn State fans rallied around the University because they give a damn about the revenues or because they love sex offenders? You clearly do not get it. You might as well be demanding we cancel Christmas to alot of these places.
No I totally get, I think the Christmas analogy is apt. The nature of the fervor is akin to that of religion. Is is emotional, not rational. It is the kind of mentality that leads an educational institution to erect a statue to a football coach. But it is a dangerous mentality and what happened at PSU demonstrates that perfectly. Intelligent, well-meaning people did stupid, immoral and in some cases possibly criminal things because they couldn't bear the idea that their idols (Joe Pa, THE PROGRAM) would be tainted in some way if the truth came out. It can be a slippery slope from school spirit to pathology. And it would be very naive not to realize that the money greases that slope.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 09, 2014, 01:50:34 PM
Yessssssss it's official: Bobby Petrino back to Lville.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24403353/bobby-petrino-says-louisville-is-his-destination-job
Lolz
I don't want to clog up the thread by responding to lots of other comments, so I will summarize.
I agree with grumbler's proposal. Part of the problem in football particularly is the the way the NFL structures itself. First by using the draft procedure to fix prices for entering labor. Second by setting draft rules that effectively force prospects into the collegiate developmental system, thus saving themselves the cost and trouble of establishing such a system.
In a world where good prospects without college skills go directly to professional leagues, college football would still be very popular. Quality of play would still be very good at the top programs and school spirit and rivalries would still generate interest (just as Army-Navy and Yale-Harvard do now regardless of how good the teams are). It would be a little less intense and perhaps a little less lucrative, and not IMO for the worse.
One more thing - I use UT as an example earlier. That was not intended to single out UT (or its alumni ;)) but just as an example of what many institutions are doing. I picked UT because there was CNN data and because of its otherwise strong rep scholastically. I suspect that if I were in Valmy's position as an alumnus, I would wear the colors and root enthusiastically for the Longhorns. But I would like to think that I would feel a lot better about it if I knew what was happening on the field didn't involve any compromises off the field. And the only way to get there is to stop accepting the legacy of the past, and agree on mutual disarmament.
If I were a UT alum I would buy season tickets right down by the chaps-and-thong squad.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 09, 2014, 02:28:50 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 09, 2014, 01:50:34 PM
Yessssssss it's official: Bobby Petrino back to Lville.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24403353/bobby-petrino-says-louisville-is-his-destination-job
Lolz
That is amazing.
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 03:35:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 09, 2014, 02:28:50 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 09, 2014, 01:50:34 PM
Yessssssss it's official: Bobby Petrino back to Lville.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24403353/bobby-petrino-says-louisville-is-his-destination-job
Lolz
That is amazing.
What the heck has the Louisville AD been smoking?
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 10:08:32 AM
If you replaced the current system with something else, you would not really be replacing the current system at all - you would be discarding the current system, and creating a new one that nobody would care about. Just like the NBA D-League. At best, you could hope for the level of support you see for AAA baseball, but even that would be unlikely, since minor league baseball, for as tepid as it's support base it, is at least based on decades and decades of history.
Tepid? :unsure:
The Pawsox stadium is always packed. Is that an anomaly?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 09, 2014, 06:19:50 PM
Tepid? :unsure:
The Pawsox stadium is always packed. Is that an anomaly?
Well if we are comparing it to Michigan Football sure.
The Pawsox are middle of the pack for AAA teams as far as income is concerned so I wouldn't think they are atypical.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 09, 2014, 01:30:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 09, 2014, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on January 09, 2014, 01:22:25 PM
Is "Interuniversity" hockey big in Canada?
Not really. University teams will get a small amount of coverage, a few hundred to a couple thousand fans at games, but the major developmental league is major junior hockey.
Now that I am Dorsey again, I can finally say fuck you for stealing our hockey team. :ultra:
Actually, no one really cared except to comment that it sucks we aren't a 4 sport city anymore. Which is probably why we lost the team.
I think "Big 4" is a lame misnomer foisted upon us by Northeastern media. The NHL is as irrelevant as MLS, the Premier League or a professional ultimate Frisbee team. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 09, 2014, 06:30:40 PM
I think "Big 4" is a lame misnomer foisted upon us by Northeastern media. The NHL is as irrelevant as MLS, the Premier League or a professional ultimate Frisbee team. :rolleyes:
This is why I hate all Southern NHL teams and I always root for them to fail. Pearls before swine I say.
Dude, you're talking about hockey. Snobbery makes you look foolish.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 09, 2014, 06:42:41 PM
Dude, you're talking about hockey. Snobbery makes you look foolish.
I just want to see crazy passionate fans doing crap like destroying downtown Montreal and throwing octopi on the ice.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 09, 2014, 06:42:41 PM
Dude, you're talking about hockey. Snobbery makes you look foolish.
qft
Quote from: Rasputin on January 10, 2014, 09:14:19 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 09, 2014, 06:42:41 PM
Dude, you're talking about hockey. Snobbery makes you look foolish.
qft
Eh whatever. I don't want to see teams whose fans do not give a crap win. Boringsville.
I'm sure Thrashers fans cared if they won or lost. I just didn't know any. :P
Quote from: Berkut on January 09, 2014, 12:32:22 PM
It has to be financially viable as well. It has to "work" as a league in its own right, at least to some extent.
Like I said, what you propose is fine if you want to propose a system that just destroys college sports altogether. But if that is the case, who cares who it is done?
You are arguing like there is some compelling argument being made that we have to preserve college sports for the sake of the major professional leagues, and that argument is being made by people who care about college athletics, as if your typical college sports fan is a college fan because they want to make sure the NFL has a good way of developing players.
But this has been my point in response to your posts (and maybe you don't even disagree with it, and maybe you don't even care):
Proposing a means to replace a particular function of college sports (evaluating and preparing players for a professional career) as an argument for why it would be ok to get rid of college sports is kind of, well, irrelevant. It's like arguing that it would be ok to ban bicycles because people could still get exercise by cross country skiing. It might be true, but who cares? Certainly not the people who care about riding bicycles.
I was addressing why there isn't an alternate feeder league for the NFL and NBA. It's because it has one, and it's college sports. The arguments being presented were as if the professional sports leagues needed college sports, which isn't true. It uses college sports because it can and because setting up a competing system would be difficult, not because it wouldn't have alternatives if college sports didn't exist.
I'm not out to destroy college sports, but I think that because of the money and (paradoxically) the fan's fervor for their school it isn't and hasn't for a long time been about amateur athletes playing for their school (at least in division I). The players themselves are being paid even if it is through scholarships (and a diploma) instead of salaries, and because the costs for the players is kept low the amount of money that can be spent on everything around them goes up and up. The dishonesty involved in pretending that the players are "amateur" or "student-athletes" or even participants in the student body in the same way as everybody else at the school bugs me way more than anything else. I don't see them or the sports program around them as being representatives of the school in the same way as someone whose primary reason for being at the school is education, and so I find it weird that it would engender so much more affection than any other professional sports team.
Of course there are exceptions to this, and there are athletes and sports programs that are about getting an education and/or be a part of the school as something other than hired guns. I don't see that as an increasing trend though.
Quote from: grumbler on January 09, 2014, 01:10:30 PM
You are engaging in the fallacy that the NCAA isn't the schools' collective creation. Saying that universities would only do something if it was "it was imposed from above" and then mention the NCAA as though it was "above" the schools is to misunderstand the entire nature of the NCAA. If the school presidents want to do something, they are the decision-makers for the NCAA. All it takes is the decision by the leading schools to do it, and it will be done. The presidents care about fair competition, not quarterback ratings.
Like the government is the collective creation of the people? Does that mean the government can't impose anything on anybody? Any change in rulings by the NCAA is unlikely to be supported by all the schools, therefore it would have to be "imposed" on some of the schools even if the vast majority supported the change.
Quote from: dps on January 09, 2014, 06:07:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 03:35:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 09, 2014, 02:28:50 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 09, 2014, 01:50:34 PM
Yessssssss it's official: Bobby Petrino back to Lville.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24403353/bobby-petrino-says-louisville-is-his-destination-job
Lolz
That is amazing.
What the heck has the Louisville AD been smoking?
Because he wants to win?
He has as much of a winning track record as almost any coach in the country--and a longer one than the coach that just left for Texas. Yes he was constantly looking to move up, but unless he truly wins in a huge way he has too much baggage to get a job at an elite school or the NFL.
I wouldn't refuse to hire a guy because he might win a shitload of games and then take a bigger job.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 10, 2014, 01:22:14 PM
Quote from: dps on January 09, 2014, 06:07:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 09, 2014, 03:35:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 09, 2014, 02:28:50 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 09, 2014, 01:50:34 PM
Yessssssss it's official: Bobby Petrino back to Lville.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24403353/bobby-petrino-says-louisville-is-his-destination-job
Lolz
That is amazing.
What the heck has the Louisville AD been smoking?
Because he wants to win?
He has as much of a winning track record as almost any coach in the country--and a longer one than the coach that just left for Texas. Yes he was constantly looking to move up, but unless he truly wins in a huge way he has too much baggage to get a job at an elite school or the NFL.
I wouldn't refuse to hire a guy because he might win a shitload of games and then take a bigger job.
Yeah, I can kind of see it. Petrino had success at Louisville before, but admittedly his career has been something of a dumpster fire since. It's a pretty old story - he comes crawling back to the place of his original success, only this time he agrees to a $10 million dollar early termination clause.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 10, 2014, 01:22:14 PM
I wouldn't refuse to hire a guy because he might win a shitload of games and then take a bigger job.
And always left the place he was just at a trainwreck? Sounds like you are begging for years of losing seasons once he leaves.
Quote from: Barrister on January 10, 2014, 01:27:40 PM
Yeah, I can kind of see it. Petrino had success at Louisville before, but admittedly his career has been something of a dumpster fire since. It's a pretty old story - he comes crawling back to the place of his original success, only this time he agrees to a $10 million dollar early termination clause.
He went to the Falcons and left voluntarily on very bad terms. But then he went to Arkansas and did a ridiculously good job--he took a very mediocre team and had them poised for a national title run. That was when he was caught with his 25 year old girlfriend in a motorcycle crash, starting a chain of events that led to his firing and him becoming a laughingstock.
He then took the job at Western Kentucky, a competitor for worst job in the country, and has been doing a lights out job there - he actually beat an SEC team this year (Kentucky, but they are technically in the SEC).
His resume, less the shameless looking for better jobs and quitting as soon as they come along plus girlfriend on motorcycle fiascos, looks like he is as good as any coach in the country. He has a lot of dumpster fire episodes off the field, but W/L wise he has stayed stellar.
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2014, 01:28:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 10, 2014, 01:22:14 PM
I wouldn't refuse to hire a guy because he might win a shitload of games and then take a bigger job.
And always left the place he was just at a trainwreck? Sounds like you are begging for years of losing seasons once he leaves.
This is a really good article on Petrino for a year or so ago that goes into why programs hit the skids once he leaves.
http://www.wdrb.com/story/19625175/crawford-why-post-petrino-life-is-no-picnic?clienttype=printable
Quote from: alfred russel on January 10, 2014, 01:36:04 PM
He went to the Falcons and left voluntarily on very bad terms. But then he went to Arkansas and did a ridiculously good job--he took a very mediocre team and had them poised for a national title run. That was when he was caught with his 25 year old girlfriend in a motorcycle crash, starting a chain of events that led to his firing and him becoming a laughingstock.
Yeah and how long has Arkansas been trying to repair the damage he did? For whatever reason when he leaves be prepared for disaster. The guy does great in the short term but you have to wonder if he stayed around would it eventually come crashing down? Past results sort of suggest that is the case.
Maybe we might even find out at Louisville :P
Quote from: alfred russel on January 10, 2014, 01:36:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 10, 2014, 01:27:40 PM
Yeah, I can kind of see it. Petrino had success at Louisville before, but admittedly his career has been something of a dumpster fire since. It's a pretty old story - he comes crawling back to the place of his original success, only this time he agrees to a $10 million dollar early termination clause.
He went to the Falcons and left voluntarily on very bad terms. But then he went to Arkansas and did a ridiculously good job--he took a very mediocre team and had them poised for a national title run. That was when he was caught with his 25 year old girlfriend in a motorcycle crash, starting a chain of events that led to his firing and him becoming a laughingstock.
He then took the job at Western Kentucky, a competitor for worst job in the country, and has been doing a lights out job there - he actually beat an SEC team this year (Kentucky, but they are technically in the SEC).
His resume, less the shameless looking for better jobs and quitting as soon as they come along plus girlfriend on motorcycle fiascos, looks like he is as good as any coach in the country. He has a lot of dumpster fire episodes off the field, but W/L wise he has stayed stellar.
I wasn't pretending to give a precise run down of Petrino's post-Louisville career. I would continue to argue that "something of a dumpster fire" is an appropriate summary.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 10, 2014, 01:37:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2014, 01:28:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 10, 2014, 01:22:14 PM
I wouldn't refuse to hire a guy because he might win a shitload of games and then take a bigger job.
And always left the place he was just at a trainwreck? Sounds like you are begging for years of losing seasons once he leaves.
This is a really good article on Petrino for a year or so ago that goes into why programs hit the skids once he leaves.
http://www.wdrb.com/story/19625175/crawford-why-post-petrino-life-is-no-picnic?clienttype=printable
Ah ok that is interesting.
Maybe Louisville will have learned its lesson next time he bolts on them.
Quote from: Barrister on January 10, 2014, 01:47:52 PM
I wasn't pretending to give a precise run down of Petrino's post-Louisville career. I would continue to argue that "something of a dumpster fire" is an appropriate summary.
The motorcycle incident kind of overshadows everything.
But his teams have always been very well coached and exciting to watch. I'm glad he is back in big time football and in the ACC.
And if he ends up crashing another motorcyle with a new girlfriend, that will be fun too.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 10, 2014, 01:55:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 10, 2014, 01:47:52 PM
I wasn't pretending to give a precise run down of Petrino's post-Louisville career. I would continue to argue that "something of a dumpster fire" is an appropriate summary.
The motorcycle incident kind of overshadows everything.
But his teams have always been very well coached and exciting to watch. I'm glad he is back in big time football and in the ACC.
And if he ends up crashing another motorcyle with a new girlfriend, that will be fun too.
Hey I am not saying this will not be incredibly entertaining for the rest of us, just thought it was crazy to invite back the dude who abused them.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 10, 2014, 01:55:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 10, 2014, 01:47:52 PM
I wasn't pretending to give a precise run down of Petrino's post-Louisville career. I would continue to argue that "something of a dumpster fire" is an appropriate summary.
The motorcycle incident kind of overshadows everything.
But his teams have always been very well coached and exciting to watch. I'm glad he is back in big time football and in the ACC.
And if he ends up crashing another motorcyle with a new girlfriend, that will be fun too.
I'll always remember him (and I only casually follow NCAA football, so remembering anyone is saying something) for the disaster in Atlanta.
Quote from: frunk on January 10, 2014, 12:34:35 PM
Like the government is the collective creation of the people? Does that mean the government can't impose anything on anybody? Any change in rulings by the NCAA is unlikely to be supported by all the schools, therefore it would have to be "imposed" on some of the schools even if the vast majority supported the change.
No, like the US government is the US President. Does that mean the US government can impose on the US President? Any changes in rules by the presidents of the universities is not going to be "imposed from above." There is no one above the presidents of the universities.
Quote from: Barrister on January 10, 2014, 01:57:24 PM
I'll always remember him (and I only casually follow NCAA football, so remembering anyone is saying something) for the disaster in Atlanta.
He is hated in Atlanta over what happened.
I don't understand why. The team was having an awful year. Yes he quit in the middle of the season, but the season was over. The team had nothing to play for besides a draft pick.
Yes he quit in his first year, but it wasn't outside the realm of possibility that he was going to be fired anyway. Even if he wasn't, if he decided the NFL wasn't his passion it was probably better for everyone that he went back to college.
I think people were just pissed off about the season, and Petrino rage was a good way to vent. Plus the media loves a good heel storyline, and Petrino played the part here.
UGA has a new defensive coordinator....Hired from FSU. :lol:
Shame. I thought Grantham did a good job overall. Last year's team just had too many new players.
Hey MBM the coaching staff just got announced: http://texassports.com/news/2014/1/15/FB_0115140254.aspx
Vance Bedford: defensive coordinator/secondary
Bruce Chambers: tight ends
Brian Jean-Mary: linebackers/recruiting coordinator
Les Koenning: wide receivers
Tommie Robinson: running backs
Chris Rumph: assistant head coach for defense/defensive line
Chris Vaughn: defensive backs/special teams coordinator
Shawn Watson: assistant head coach for offense/quarterbacks
Joe Wickline: offensive coordinator/offensive line
Pat Moorer: head strength and conditioning coach for football
Woah a Special Teams coordinator? What a concept.
There's a lot of whining about it, especially on the offensive side of the ball, but I think I like it as much as you can without seeing it on the field.
I'm really interested in seeing what Wickline does as a full OC. Run heavy spread is the first thing that came to mind.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 15, 2014, 05:57:57 PM
There's a lot of whining about it, especially on the offensive side of the ball, but I think I like it as much as you can without seeing it on the field.
I'm really interested in seeing what Wickline does as a full OC. Run heavy spread is the first thing that came to mind.
The whining is ridiculous. Say what you want to about that staff they are loaded with experience. I mean there is a long time OC as WR coach for godsake. I think Wickline was brought over to install the OSU offense and I think that is brilliant. Some people were surprised the OLine coach was the OC but Missouri and Stanford do the same thing and it seems to work for them.
Yeah, I think it sounds just fine and potentially awesome. I'm also curious to see what Watson can do with the QBs. Against all odds, Ash improved quite a bit as it is, and he SHOULD have two years of eligibility remaining with the med redshirt. Swoopes and Heard, especially Heard, could turn into monsters.
MBM and Valmy: did you guys see the (supposed) new player rules for Texas? My thought concerning the no living off campus one was that it will be harder to slip those envelopes of unmarked bills under the doors of players in the Dorm.
:lol:
I like the rules though. They started spring workouts today.
QuoteCaleb Bluiett @c_blu42 5m
First workout was somethin serious. I'm worn out man...
Oh and hey, apparently Greg Robinson is interviewing for the Cal DC spot. Or something at Cal. They'd probably be pretty happy with the D only giving up 16 to Oregon.
My God, Cal is such a mess right now.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 16, 2014, 07:08:20 PM
Oh and hey, apparently Greg Robinson is interviewing for the Cal DC spot. Or something at Cal. They'd probably be pretty happy with the D only giving up 16 to Oregon.
Ok now lets not go into Mack Brown-esque spin. We did give up over 500 yards.
I dont give a shit about yardage when it's running up and down the field between the 20s. They kept them out of the endzone on all but one of their possessions. Then Case McCoy stepped out there and got them in twice.
E: I can't believe he subbed Case back in like that.
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2014, 07:02:58 PM
MBM and Valmy: did you guys see the (supposed) new player rules for Texas? My thought concerning the no living off campus one was that it will be harder to slip those envelopes of unmarked bills under the doors of players in the Dorm.
Of course I am plugged in man.
Texas doesn't do that sort of thing (well not anymore there was some shenanigans back when Fred Akers was head coach...but what do you expect from somebody poisoned by Wyoming corruption?). That is why they have only won one national championship in 43 years.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 16, 2014, 07:15:29 PM
I dont give a shit about yardage. It's Oregon. They kept them out of the endzone on all but one of their possessions. Then Case McCoy stepped out there and got them in twice.
They could have easily scored more. But anyway I don't want to discuss the 2010 - 2013 Mack Brown era anytime soon :(
Texas needs to be more SEC :(
QuoteThey could have easily scored more.
Yeah, they were kicking field goals because they felt bad for Mack.
I bet they score a lot on Wyoming next September!
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2014, 07:19:04 PM
I bet they score a lot on Wyoming next September!
Wyoming hired that dude from NDSU, didn't they?
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2014, 07:18:21 PM
Texas needs to be more SEC :(
Texas needs to join the Big 10, so I can get entertaining Texas-Ohio State games. And kick out Penn State.
Craig Bohl? Yeah. He made North Dakota State into a monster, but he says he wants to build.
Well, he is in on the sub-basement level here. Build away. I expect next year to be rough, but I hope the days of giving up 50+ points to mid-level Mountain West teams is over.
In reality, in a few years I do think he has a chance to make Wyoming very good. Then he can leave for Nebraska.
QuoteTexas needs to join the Big 10, so I can get entertaining Texas-Ohio State games. And kick out Penn State.
Fuck that, it's cold up there.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 16, 2014, 07:22:08 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2014, 07:18:21 PM
Texas needs to be more SEC :(
Texas needs to join the Big 10, so I can get entertaining Texas-Ohio State games. And kick out Penn State.
No way Texas leaves with Wyoming soon to be joining the Big 12.
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2014, 07:23:16 PM
Craig Bohl? Yeah. He made North Dakota State into a monster, but he says he wants to build.
Well, he is in on the sub-basement level here. Build away. I expect next year to be rough, but I hope the days of giving up 50+ points to mid-level Mountain West teams is over.
In reality, in a few years I do think he has a chance to make Wyoming very good. Then he can leave for Nebraska.
Yeah that's his name. He was on Gameday when they went up to Fargo.
He took NDSU from a D2 school to 3 time (this year undefeated - and the beat KState) championship D-1a (er, I mean FCS) team.
He was something like 7-3 against FBS teams in his tenure there. I hope he still wants to build.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 16, 2014, 07:23:20 PM
QuoteTexas needs to join the Big 10, so I can get entertaining Texas-Ohio State games. And kick out Penn State.
Fuck that, it's cold up there.
My nipples are hard from the cold. You can cut glass with them.
After that Gameday interview I was thinking it'd be interesting to see what he could do in Austin.
Jeremy Fowler had the Bohl hire as one of his top 10 coaching changes - in effect saying "Why is such a good coach going to Wyoming?"
If he is that good, I have to agree - but Bohl seems to want a challenge.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24404848/coaching-changes-daily-ranking-the-top-10-coaching-hires
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 16, 2014, 07:18:37 PM
QuoteThey could have easily scored more.
Yeah, they were kicking field goals because they felt bad for Mack.
No they were kicking field goals because they were an undisciplined team that mainly relied on big plays to cover up execution problems. Color me unimpressed by them, though they were certainly very talented.
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2014, 07:41:10 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24404848/coaching-changes-daily-ranking-the-top-10-coaching-hires
I don't get the hand wringing over Strong at Texas and his supposed inability to handle the politics and the media. The media had me thinking he was some sort of country hayseed who could barely speak a coherent sentence, the Forrest Gump of coaches. Instead he comes down here and rocks every interview and every press conference. He even had Red McCombs calling him up to apologize. I don't get it. Are they confusing Strong with somebody else?
Quote4. Craig Bohl, Wyoming: Wyoming got Craig Bohl? That was my first question when I saw the news. This is like when Jermaine Dupri landed Janet Jackson. Probably shouldn't have happened. Bohl could have had a Big Ten job. Now he's in Laramie. Still a bit shocking.
Clearly he is unaware of the secret negotiations to bring Wyoming into the Big 12. But seriously getting Wyoming to win is not that much harder than getting Minnesota to win. What is Bohl's stance on screaming 'First Down Motherfuckers'?
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2014, 02:13:12 PM
No they were kicking field goals because they were an undisciplined team that mainly relied on big plays to cover up execution problems. Color me unimpressed by them, though they were certainly very talented.
So they probably couldn't have easily scored more. :)
QuoteI don't get the hand wringing over Strong at Texas and his supposed inability to handle the politics and the media. The media had me thinking he was some sort of country hayseed who could barely speak a coherent sentence, the Forrest Gump of coaches. Instead he comes down here and rocks every interview and every press conference. He even had Red McCombs calling him up to apologize. I don't get it. Are they confusing Strong with somebody else?
Dude, they seriously might be. With the amount of shit about Strong not being good with the media, etc, I was almost expecting some sort of anti-social psycho to just angrily stare down any reporter dumb enough to ask him a question. As you say though, instead he is nailing every interview and press conference.
I think it is a bit premature to declare that Strong has l33t political and media skills. BOB at Penn State also knocked every interview and press conference out of the park, and still ended up hating the politics and media exposure. That's part of the reason why he left so soon.
I think that Strong will be just fine, but I also think that it is understandable that some writers might note that he has never shown these skills in the past. Probably the bulk of what you hear, though, is the echo-chamber effect, as writers often base their own stories off of what other writers are saying, rather than what the subject of their writing is saying or doing.
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2014, 02:29:06 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2014, 07:41:10 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24404848/coaching-changes-daily-ranking-the-top-10-coaching-hires
I don't get the hand wringing over Strong at Texas and his supposed inability to handle the politics and the media. The media had me thinking he was some sort of country hayseed who could barely speak a coherent sentence, the Forrest Gump of coaches. Instead he comes down here and rocks every interview and every press conference. He even had Red McCombs calling him up to apologize. I don't get it. Are they confusing Strong with somebody else?
Maybe they're mixing him up with Joker Phillips. I suspect a lot of Texas boosters and media types can't figure the difference between Kentucky and Louisville.
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2014, 02:29:06 PM
Clearly he is unaware of the secret negotiations to bring Wyoming into the Big 12. But seriously getting Wyoming to win is not that much harder than getting Minnesota to win. What is Bohl's stance on screaming 'First Down Motherfuckers'?
God I hope he just turns a blind eye to the student section. It has always been hell raising and beer drinking, as you saw, but that was the way Wyoming has always been. One of the old time chants when things went wrong for Wyoming was "Fuck...Fuck...Fuck, Fuck, FUCK!"
Coach Bohl announces that Wyoming will have 2 colors, brown and gold (the school colors). No more weird ass camo shit or 14 other ways to make uniforms - last year there were eagle wings on the shoulder pads...
All of the old timers had their first orgasm in years. Nike representatives are distraught. Big 10 ADs wonder why he didn't come there.
Quote from: PDH on January 18, 2014, 09:22:00 PM
Coach Bohl announces that Wyoming will have 2 colors, brown and gold (the school colors). No more weird ass camo shit or 14 other ways to make uniforms - last year there were eagle wings on the shoulder pads...
All of the old timers had their first orgasm in years. Nike representatives are distraught. Big 10 ADs wonder why he didn't come there.
There was only one job open in the Big Ten, and Franklin has more experience at big schools than Bohl. Bohl could find himself in the Big Ten before too long. I don't know if Purdue and Wisconsin ever looked at him after the 2012 season. They didn't hire higher-profile guys than he.
Well there you go. Cannot go to a Big 10 job if there are no Big 10 jobs.
Maybe after his fourth consecutive undefeated MWC championship season a job will come open.
I was kinda joshing with that last line: The Wyoming old timers cannot have an orgasm, it might make them less cranky; Nike doesn't care about Wyoming; the Big 10 ADs wait a couple of years before poaching a MWC coach.
Nike might not care about Wyoming per se, but clearly they want to own the whole college football world (a king ain't satisfied till he rules everything).
The Domers are expanding their stadium:
http://crossroads.nd.edu/news/45871-biggest-notre-dame-project-ever-a-crossroads-of-academics-student-life-and-athletics/
Pictures in there. Adding buildings and stuff.
Also there was a thing about Michigan possibly covering up the fact that their kicker raped someone in 2009. And I guess his buddy Taylor Lewan was threatening to rape her again after she reported it.
Hey MBM today is Mack and Sally Brown day here in Austin. I clapped and baked some cookies to celebrate.
Yay! I hope there's some butter left at the store.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 30, 2014, 06:14:32 PM
Also there was a thing about Michigan possibly covering up the fact that their kicker raped someone in 2009. And I guess his buddy Taylor Lewan was threatening to rape her again after she reported it.
Yeah, this was one of those "storm in a tea cup" cases. The kicker, Gibbons, was investigated by the police based on a claim by a woman that he had raped her while they were both drunk at a party. After the initial claim, she refused to cooperate further with the police, so they eventually dropped the case. The university was either never informed because the police never reached the stage of filing charges, or it was informed but couldn't proceed because the woman refused to cooperate.
University policies on such cases changed between 2011 and 2013 to include the policy of investigating "sexual misconduct" even if the woman refused to complain. They did so in the four-year-old Gibbons case, and uncovered enough evidence to conclude that Gibbons was more likely than not to have violated the student code of conduct, even though he hadn't committed a crime according to the legal system. The result was that he was nominally kicked out of the school, even though he had already graduated and his football eligibility (except for maybe a bowl game) was over. There is no evidence of any coverup. The school followed its 2009 policy in 2009, and its 2013 policy in 2013. In both cases it took the case as far as it could, and the athletic department was never involved.
Some people are making a big deal out of the fact that Hoke stated that Gibbons was not in Phoenix for the chicken wings bowl because Gibbons was dealing with "family matters" rather than because Gibbons had been kicked out of the school, but it looks like federal student privacy laws made it impossible for Hoke to be the one to announce Gibbons's "permanent separation" from the university.
Oh, and the Taylor Lewan "charges" were of the "a friend of a friend heard him say..." variety. He's pretty much a giant asshole, though, so I certainly wouldn't disbelieve actual evidence that he had done something like this.
So a false accusation got him kicked out? That's shitty if true. He didn't lose his degree did he?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 31, 2014, 01:35:45 PM
So a false accusation got him kicked out? That's shitty if true. He didn't lose his degree did he?
The investigation turned up evidence that he violated the Michigan code of conduct. I don't see the shittyness there.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 31, 2014, 01:35:45 PM
So a false accusation got him kicked out? That's shitty if true. He didn't lose his degree did he?
He wasn't found guilty of the crime of rape, but was found to have violated the Michigan Student Code of Conduct for"sexual misconduct." What that appears to have meant in this case (which is protected by some pretty hefty privacy laws, so much of what we know is speculation) seems to be that he got the consent of the woman when she was too drunk to give "proper consent." That's a bootable offense, apparently.
She complained to the police the next day, and went through the whole rape kit bit, but conceded that after she had supposedly been raped, she voluntarily gave Gibbons a hummer. She still believed that she hadn't consented to sex, but also seemed to think that her case was too confused and uncertain to press.
He lost nothing but a semester of grad school he wasn't going to return for anyway, and a bowl game he couldn't have played in, anyway, due to injury.
Seems shitty to kick the dude out if that's all it was.
Quote from: grumbler on January 31, 2014, 01:34:28 PM
Oh, and the Taylor Lewan "charges" were of the "a friend of a friend heard him say..." variety. He's pretty much a giant asshole, though, so I certainly wouldn't disbelieve actual evidence that he had done something like this.
He's the one with the mustache tattoo on his finger, right?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 31, 2014, 03:02:05 PM
Seems shitty to kick the dude out if that's all it was.
I know. Usually when a football player is involved with rape they give him the Heisman. Ok I kid...mostly.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on January 31, 2014, 03:02:05 PM
He's the one with the mustache tattoo on his finger, right?
Yep. A funny guy unless he gets his dander up, but then he kinda goes apeshit and does or says dumb stuff. He's never been charged with anything, but he's been down to the police station a number of times to talk to them.
From Twitter:
Quote"@sganim: Breaking in college sports: Northwestern football players have won the right to unionize. The school says it plans to appeal."
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677763/northwestern-wildcats-football-players-win-bid-unionize
QuoteCHICAGO -- Northwestern Wildcats football players and the College Athletes Players Association on Wednesday won their petition through the National Labor Relations Board to form a union and bargain for benefits.
As a result, Northwestern players will hold a vote on whether to unionize, a decision that will clearly impact college football and college sports generally. Northwestern said in a statement that it will appeal the decision.
"While we respect the NLRB process and the regional director's opinion, we disagree with it. Northwestern believes strongly that our student-athletes are not employees, but students," the university's statement read. "Unionization and collective bargaining are not the appropriate methods to address the concerns raised by student-athletes."
http://tracking.si.com/2014/03/26/northwestern-nlrb-employees-capa-college-football-ncaaf/
QuoteNorthwestern University athletes won their case before the National Labor Relations Board on Wednesday and were ruled to be employees eligible to form a union.
The win on March 26 effectively gives the student-athletes collective bargaining rights. The school said on Wednesday afternoon that a statement from the school will come soon, according to a tweet from NCAA reporter Allie Grasgreen, but that the university will in fact appeal. The official ruling between Northwestern Univerisity — the employer — and CAPA — the petitioner — can be found here.
The ruling affects only students at private universities. State university college athletes who want to unionize must appeal to their state's labor board. The five points attorneys for CAPA argued for why NU athletes should be considered employees are as follows, according to Chris Johnson of Sports Illustrated:
Football players at Northwestern are compensated for a service (i.e. football) with athletics-based grants-in-aid, or scholarships; they have supervisors (i.e. coaches) who control their schedules and monitor what they say on social media; they must abide by certain rules and regulations, and are held to different standards than other students; they can have their compensation taken away (i.e. have their scholarship revoked) for violating those rules and lose their jobs (i.e. their spots in the lineup) if they skip practices or games; and they have a contract (i.e. an athletic tender agreement) that stipulates what they must do to maintain their scholarship.
CAPA had been looking for "guaranteed coverage for injuries during sanctioned competition," according to Johnson, as well as a "trust fund" to subsidize former players who want to continue their education. It had also lobbied for less contact during scrimmages and practices in addition to concussion experts on the sidelines during games who are not in any way affiliated with the school.
NU quarterback Kain Colter tweeted his excitement following the breaking news, saying he's proud of his teammates and considers it a "huge win for all college athletes."
Quote from: sbr on March 26, 2014, 02:40:13 PM
http://tracking.si.com/2014/03/26/northwestern-nlrb-employees-capa-college-football-ncaaf/
QuoteNorthwestern University athletes won their case before the National Labor Relations Board on Wednesday and were ruled to be employees eligible to form a union.
The win on March 26 effectively gives the student-athletes collective bargaining rights. The school said on Wednesday afternoon that a statement from the school will come soon, according to a tweet from NCAA reporter Allie Grasgreen, but that the university will in fact appeal. The official ruling between Northwestern Univerisity — the employer — and CAPA — the petitioner — can be found here.
The ruling affects only students at private universities. State university college athletes who want to unionize must appeal to their state’s labor board. The five points attorneys for CAPA argued for why NU athletes should be considered employees are as follows, according to Chris Johnson of Sports Illustrated:
Football players at Northwestern are compensated for a service (i.e. football) with athletics-based grants-in-aid, or scholarships; they have supervisors (i.e. coaches) who control their schedules and monitor what they say on social media; they must abide by certain rules and regulations, and are held to different standards than other students; they can have their compensation taken away (i.e. have their scholarship revoked) for violating those rules and lose their jobs (i.e. their spots in the lineup) if they skip practices or games; and they have a contract (i.e. an athletic tender agreement) that stipulates what they must do to maintain their scholarship.
CAPA had been looking for “guaranteed coverage for injuries during sanctioned competition,” according to Johnson, as well as a “trust fund” to subsidize former players who want to continue their education. It had also lobbied for less contact during scrimmages and practices in addition to concussion experts on the sidelines during games who are not in any way affiliated with the school.
NU quarterback Kain Colter tweeted his excitement following the breaking news, saying he’s proud of his teammates and considers it a “huge win for all college athletes.”
Yeah, if you're an employee, then your scholarship's probably gonna be considered a taxable benefit. Have fun dealing with the IRS, chump.
Anybody hear about that case where a NLRB arbiter decided that scholarship football players at Northwestern University are employees and have a right to form a union? Interesting stuff.
Anybody hear that Vernon Davis is going to go public with an IPO? :P