Unverified Voracity Is Obvious In Retrospect
Captain Renault. So let's say you're an unemployed Cleveland man who spends two months constructing an igloo instead of, you know, attempting to find a job. What would be totally bitchin' for the wall of your igloo?
Obviously.
Score one for baseless internet speculation. According to Greg Banks, the internet-wide speculation about a Ryan Van Bergen position move is on the nose:
Banks is one of a half dozen or so Wolverines who’ll play an expanded and slightly different role on Michigan’s defensive front this fall.
He said he expects Ryan Van Bergen to take over Graham’s pass-rushing defensive end spot - “I think that’s the plan,” he said - while he plays both end and tackle.
Birkett follows that up with an assertion that Mike Martin "could see time outside" if Will Campbell progresses. I assume that means three-tech DT, not defensive end, because that latter would be plain nuts. To reiterate: the move is the best bet for Michigan to have an excellent defensive line next year. RVB isn't going to be Brandon Graham but he's far better than the alternatives and moving Mike Martin to three-tech will get him one-on-one with guards he's faster than, potentially paving the way for a ton of TFLs. He'll be more effective there, and NT should be decent with the Sagesse/Campbell platoon.
For his part, Banks is up to 278 pounds, 15 or so up from last year. LaLota also comes in for some praise, but I'm betting serious playing time for him is another year off.
Vincent Smith, meanwhile, is already jogging and should have no problems returning in time for fall practice.
And then they do nothing. Internet speculation has gone from "maybe the Big Ten will add Pitt" to "in ten years only four conferences will exist and football will be played by sexy robots." I'm not sure whether this Barking Carnival post positing a 14-team Big Ten, here previously deemed completely infeasible and then met with a crazy semi-relegation proposal*, is genius or mad. Or possibly both. Check the rationale here:
Powers knows that the Big 10 universities compete individually and as a region for its fair share of the federal R&D pie and that, despite the greatness of its member universities, the Big 10 region has not faired nearly as well as the coasts. Compared to numerous universities in California and Massachusetts, several of which don’t give a second thought about college football (MIT, Cal-Davis, Cal Tech, U of San Francisco, etc), there is a rather dramatic concentration of academic R&D that is not favorable to the Midwest or Southwest. Point being, there is room for growth here, and adding two powerful Senators from Texas to the sixteen Senators representing Big 10 states is not an insignificant addition. Without Texas, the CIC universities represent the best of the rust belt. With Texas, the CIC represents the best of the middle of the country.
Wha? I'm not sure how much I buy the idea that heartland universities will have a bigger lobbying block if they're all in the same conference. The CIC happens to have all Big Ten schools and Chicago, but is it really necessary to bring along Texas's athletic programs—not like that would exactly be a downside, though—to invite them to join the CIC? It's not like the Big 12 has any leverage over the Longhorns.
Elsewhere, 14 teams i the new 11 teams. and people are coalescing around a 16-team uber conference that comes with NCAA secession. Andy Staples's version may or may not be sarcastic, but I've seen plenty of other speculation to that effect. Most of it is Bleacher Report quality and not worth linking or anything, but it's out there.
To reiterate my previously expressed stance: a college football "conference" that has more than 12 teams isn't really a conference unless it adds promotion and relegation. Static divisions are separate conferences with a weird scheduling agreement and a wildly unbalanced schedule. It would be logistically terrible.
At this point it would be fantastic if no one did anything. Too bad Tradesports imploded.
BONUS. I don't remember where I saw this, but I believe it was some random message board: if the Big Ten comes down from on high with an end result that seriously damages the Big East, isn't the Big East's best move booting Notre Dame in an attempt to force the Irish into the Big Ten? If ND was cut loose by the Big East all their other sports (save hockey) would be adrift with basically nowhere to go. At that point ND might have to swallow hard and join up.
*(Which a commenter pointed out is mathematically impossible for the same reason you can't play nine conference games in an eleven-team conference. Shame.)
Etc.: Help this pickle get more fans than Nickelback. The second half of the recruiting podcast in which I do my best Mel Kiper. Michigan's putting on a camp thing on the 28th at Newsterbaan, plugging the presence of Rivals and Scout. Seems like a clever move to get an early camp experience, maybe unearth an instate prospect or three.
February 18th, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^
Ok, yes, I’m aiming right between the Big Ten’s eyes because of their apparent insatiable lust for Big 12 schools. There are now rumors of Texas being asked along with Missouri. And, even Colorado. I say, let the Big 12 go after the lowly Big Ten. In fact, let’s do even better than that. Let’s break up the Big Ten.It basically makes the Big12 the super conference by picking off our schools. Original if anything. Definitely not plausible unless the Big12 did some MAJOR revenue restructuring, research restructuring, as well as a myriad of other ideas.
February 18th, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 3:19 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 2:48 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 1:56 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 1:56 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 2:29 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 5:49 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 8:48 PM ^
February 19th, 2010 at 8:53 AM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^
February 19th, 2010 at 1:54 AM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 2:17 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 2:33 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 6:20 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 2:59 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 3:27 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 3:41 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 5:00 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 5:45 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 5:50 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 6:00 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 7:05 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 7:05 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 7:16 PM ^
February 18th, 2010 at 8:34 PM ^
February 19th, 2010 at 9:46 AM ^
February 19th, 2010 at 12:54 AM ^
February 19th, 2010 at 8:37 AM ^
February 19th, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^
Comments