OT: Heisman Selection
January 1st, 2017 at 8:42 AM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 10:13 AM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 11:47 AM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 8:44 AM ^
I love Peppers but he had no business winning the Heisman and even he said so.
He should've been invited, and he was, after that...it was simply to show face and take part in the experience.
Sure, Watson would probably be the winner now and Jackson would fall to #2. I'm sure this isn't the only year if you could revote after the bowls that things would change. Not sure it makes a bit of difference though.
It's 2017...why not use this to speculate on who are your early front runners for next season?
January 1st, 2017 at 9:59 AM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 12:29 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 12:58 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 8:47 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 8:50 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 8:51 AM ^
I'm not the only one who has been losing sleep over this
January 1st, 2017 at 12:52 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 8:54 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 8:55 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 9:14 AM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 9:14 AM ^
Well, that's true of any big program. Focus is drawn to the blue-blood programs, and really good talent there tends to get hyped.
Look at Johnny Manziel at Texas A&M. If he had played at, say, Wyoming, there's no way he'd have been in the Heisman discussion. Hell, I'd argue that if Texas A&M was still in the Big 12 for that year Manziel would not have won the Heisman. It was being in the SEC that propelled that hype train.
January 1st, 2017 at 12:12 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 9:03 AM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 12:13 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 9:32 AM ^
No.
And I think you're only saying this because of how how he ended the season.
He was leading the COUNTRY in tackles for a loss for the first part of the season. He was getting sacks, he was all over the field. He had a punt return for a TD. He OBLITERATED Rutgers basically 1 v 11 playing offense.
It's just like Lamar Jackson, he played WAAAAY better in the first half of the year and then struggled down the stretch. Peppers just struggled more (in terms of maintaining the pace they were on).
When Harbaugh said "I think you're looking at the Heisman winner"...there weren't too many people arguing his opinion. It's been a long season. I think you're forgetting how dominant Peppers was before the Bye Week. So let's say he was the clear cut #2 (which he pretty much was - Watson hadn't gotten hot and neither did the Oklahoma guys).
So basically he fell from #2 to #5...post Bye Week, that's fair - you can't ignore the first half of the year and if you do...you have to do it for Lamar Jackson as well. And he probably falls further if McCaffrey or Fournette or Cook truly went off. None of them did so Peppers just hung on.
It's kind of like when Michigan lost to Iowa. Sure we should've dropped...we lost to an unranked team! But everyone else loss then too...so we just stayed at #3. Peppers was losing ground but the only guys doing what Peppers and Jackson were doing at the beginning of the year were Watson, Westbrook and Mayfield. And all 3 of those guys passed Peppers, meanwhile Jackson was losing his big lead, but had such a big lead it didn't matter.
January 1st, 2017 at 9:33 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 11:00 AM ^
Suggesting that Jabrill is anything short of incredible is ignorant and, frankly, shameful if you profess to be a Michigan fan.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 11:59 AM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 12:23 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 1:48 PM ^
If you can't have a productive conversation about a subject with someone that has less knowledge of that subject than yourself, then you probably don't know about that subject as much as you think you do. You shouldn't ever presume someone isn't worth talking to just because they don't know as much as yourself.
January 1st, 2017 at 3:06 PM ^
This is not to be construed as support for your bizzare post.
January 1st, 2017 at 8:55 AM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 9:05 AM ^
Man, ain't this the truth. When the dust settles from this bowl season the realization that will settle in is the playoffs are rendering the other bowls less and less meaningful.
It's sad to see because eventually -- not this year, not next, but eventually -- the other bowls will wither away and we'll be left with college football where a few powerful programs will be competing for the playoff spots, and everyone else will be left standing on the sidelines watching.
/sad rant
January 1st, 2017 at 9:12 AM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 9:18 AM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 9:20 AM ^
The "lesser" bowl games matter for the players and fans.
As the famous line from Jerry McGuire goes: "Show me the money."
(If I were motivated I'd dig into lesser-bowl attendance over the years, team payouts, etc. I'm seeing a lot of very empty stands at some of these bowl games. For example, the Sun Bowl in El Paso was stunningly empty.)
I agree that for now the lesser bowls hold some interest. Let's revisit this in five years.
January 1st, 2017 at 11:05 AM ^
Lesser bowl games will go away when the organizers and sponsors start losing money on them. 41 or 42 bowl games this year. Almost 2/3 of the 128 FBS teams make it to a bowl - that is ridiculous but as long there is money to be made, they will continue on.
January 1st, 2017 at 9:18 AM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 9:45 AM ^
Agree that nominally it should not make a difference. But it's a different era now than even 10 years ago, and the playoff structure has really focused things on the top four and the three games those top four play.
Just a gut feel ... I tend to be a bit cynical, so I may be wrong about this. But my gut tells me we've turned the corner and we're heading towards a focus on the playoffs to the exclusion of everything else.
January 1st, 2017 at 10:29 AM ^
Other bowls have been diminished because there is now 233 bowl games during bowl season. When 5-7 teams are playing in a bowl game people lose interest.
January 1st, 2017 at 12:51 PM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 9:28 AM ^
At least to me, not only have they become less meaningful but it has become more apparent, as a result, just how much of a money grab for sponsors nearly all of them are. The fact that these companies that sponsor bowls seem to want the exposure at the expense of attendance or even a quality game and are OK with teams taking a bath on these games rings terrible in my head - just too many games for too few really good matchups, IMHO. Indeed, I watched fewer outside of the playoffs and our game this year as opposed to last year and that trend will likely continue.
January 1st, 2017 at 10:04 AM ^
The fact that these companies that sponsor bowls seem to want the exposure at the expense of attendance or even a quality game
At some point the economics of this will catch up with the sponsors. At some point the money teams will demand to travel and play will be greater than the value of the sponsorship. This will affect the lesser bowls first, then the bigger non-playoff bowls later.
(As an aside, I've been searching around for attendance stats for some of these bowl games, and I'm coming up empty. I wonder if that's a case of "Nobody cares, so why bother reporting it?" or "It's embarrassing, so don't report it.")
EDIT -- so I found an article on attendance (link here). Numbers are not horrible, but I suspect the reported attendance is somewhat more than the actual butts-in-seats. There seems to be a trend to creating "regional bowls" so "local" teams play to boost attendance. That may be the best way to continue these lesser bowls.
January 1st, 2017 at 10:31 AM ^
TV ratings are more important than attendance for these games. Those numbers won't drop until overall interest in college football drops, and that would mean there are bigger issues at hand. Because what else are people watching on a Tuesday night in late December.
January 1st, 2017 at 10:43 AM ^
Netflix.
Point taken ... but with more people cutting the cable subscription and people opting for alternative entertainment, it will be interesting to see where all this goes.
January 1st, 2017 at 10:59 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 9:25 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 9:33 AM ^
What if Pepper's had played RB here instead of D. After the loss, a lot of people said we need a D Cook type player to get over the hump. We had that type of player, but had him at another position. Would his play making ability at RB compensated for the down grade that would have happened at LB this year? If he had been at RB all along would recruiting priorities have changed over the last 2 cycles?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 9:54 AM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 10:22 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 1:00 PM ^
Pretty funny. My post was probably a little dumb, and worded wrong. It was more in reference to people above bailing on Peppers and people in other threads wishing we had that game changing running back. I was just wondering if maybe he could have been used different and had even more success.
January 1st, 2017 at 10:12 AM ^
January 1st, 2017 at 10:56 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 1:08 PM ^
They're talking about using him as a full-time RB, not as a wildcat QB.
It's an interesting idea, although he was valuable to the defense, too. I don't know.
January 1st, 2017 at 12:36 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 1st, 2017 at 9:21 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad