Russell Wilson to Wisconsin

Submitted by ish on

according to Bruce Feldman:

RT @SportsCenter: Former NC State QB Russell Wilson will transfer to Wisconsin, sources told ESPN.

I know there's a thread below, but figured his actual decision merited a new one.  If I'm wrong, please remove.

Quail2theVict0r

June 27th, 2011 at 1:04 PM ^

The way I understand it is that he's transfering into grad school, one of which his current school doesn't have, so he'll be able to play this year (2011) and not have to sit out a year. Because of that, he would have 0 impact on 2012 and their recruiting class, but he will have an impact this year.

Mr Mackey

June 27th, 2011 at 12:22 PM ^

Mods choose this one to stay? Ok.. Well, I still think it's not that big of a deal. We're only gonna play him in the B1G championship game, and him joining one of the top teams simply makes the Big Ten better overall.

WolvinLA2

June 27th, 2011 at 12:24 PM ^

Fill me in - does he have to sit out a year?  And then does he only have one year of eligibility left?  So this is probably a good thing for us since it will only help Wisco beat the other teams in the Big Ten, yeah?

ryebreadboy

June 27th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^

You are correct.  The only way it would hurt us would be in the CC game.  In the meantime, it could help us a lot, since Nebraska, and MSU have to go through WIsconsin (also Minnesota, but they're... Minnesota).  Since Nebraska and MSU are widely favored for our half of the division, I wouldn't mind if Wisconsin crushes them both.

rockydude

June 27th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^

If I am correct, this is one of those weird things determined by the conference, as opposed to the NCAA. I believe that because he graduated and is enrolling as a grad student in a program not offered by his prior university, that he does not have to sit out a year. But given my grasp on these rules, I could easily be wrong.

For whatever reason, this is a rule that the SEC is opposed to. The SEC belief is that a college graduate should NOT be able to go to grad school at the school of his choice, but should be required to stay at his undergrad school. They're quite the scholarly bunch down there . . . 

Mr Mackey

June 27th, 2011 at 12:29 PM ^

It's related to a Big Ten school, so it is not OT according to the rules. And this is a big deal, because Wisconsin just went from a very good team with questions about their quarterback to a NC contender.

Volverine

June 27th, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^

This is good and bad. It's good for the B1G in the sense that a top team gets better. Wisconsin's weakest position was the QB spot and now they have a decent guy to fill in.

 

However, it's bad because even with this addition, the conference doesn't have anyone to compete for the NC.

Volverine

June 27th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^

We're not the Big East. This is the B1G. We're a football conference and have some of the biggest names in football. The B1G is supposed to be in the NC discussion yearly.

This is not meant to sound arrogant or anything, but when you have Michigan, OSU, Penn State, and now Nebraska in your conference but you are an after thought for the NC it's not great. For one of the conference favorites to add a good QB and still probably not be in the NC discussion (although preseason talk is dumb anyway. We started 2008 in the preseason top 25) it's bad for the conference. 

 

WolvinLA2

June 27th, 2011 at 12:49 PM ^

I understand why you think it's bad for the Big Ten to not have a true national championship contender, but that was the case before this transfer, so I don't see why that makes Wilson to Wisconsin a bad thing for the conference. 

What if some star receiver transfered to Michigan for this fall only.  We still wouldn't be a champ contender, but it would still be good for the Big Ten.

Volverine

June 27th, 2011 at 1:09 PM ^

Star receiver =/= star QB.

This argument is kind of pointless anyway. We obviously both agree it's not great for the conference. I just go to law school in SEC country and am already dreading the whole "Your conference's champ from last season added a good QB and still can't match the SEC!" 

I hope to see Wisconsin in the B1G championship game. Go Blue

LJ

June 27th, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^

You're obviously right, but I don't think he's going to get it.  Thanks for fighting the good fight.

 

Samer, what you're saying is basically, "me finding 20 bucks on the street is both good and bad.  It's good because I have more money, but it's bad because I'm still not a millionaire."

Volverine

June 27th, 2011 at 2:01 PM ^

lol I like that analogy.

That's fine. Like I said, I think we're basically saying the same thing. Obviously this isn't bad for the conference the same way the OSU debacle is. I just don't think it's good it the B1G is trying to be a premier conference. As it is, the B1G doesn't have a great reputation (recent Rose Bowl losses from Michigan, Illinois, PSU and Wisconsin; OSU getting blown out of two NCs, this past January 1st, etc.). So to still not have a NC contender, in my opinion, is bad for the conference.

 

Mr Mackey

June 27th, 2011 at 12:38 PM ^

Because he's a very good QB who can also run (not Denard / Martinez / Pryor style, but still mobile) and has three years of college experience. So he's gonna come into Wisconsin and provide experience and talent at the only position where they are lacking both.

It all depends on how fast he adapts to Wisconsin's play style, and if they adapt to him at all, but he could be a force in the Big Ten.

WolvinLA2

June 27th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^

Over the last two seasons (so just leaving out his frosh season, where he was still a starter) he three for 6600 yards, rushed for 700 yards and scored 72 touchdowns (59 passing, 13 rushing).  He threw 25 picks, but that's still better than a 2:1 ratio.  He completed 59% of his passes the last two seasons. 

Anyway, this kid is good, and Wisconsin was a QB away from being as good as they were last year.  I'd look for them to be favored to win the Big Ten this year.

triangle_M

June 27th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^

I've seen him play (live in Raleigh) and he is a game changer.  This makes Wisconsin a much better team offensively.  The issue with him may be whether the Rockies are going to let him play as much as he needs.   The B1G will give him some national media exposure that he was not getting in the ACC.  

Belisarius

June 27th, 2011 at 12:55 PM ^

I watched him play twice last year. He's good. He isn't Denard good, or Pryor good, or even healthy Martinez good. He's solid. It's a good get for Wisconsin, and by extension, the Big Ten, but in perspective, I don't think this is a massive deal. He's not Cam Newton.

 

raleighwood

June 27th, 2011 at 1:33 PM ^

It depends on how you define "good".  From what I've seen, Russell Wilson is a better QB than Denard.  He's not as fast but he's more effective running the offense.  He's the NCAA FBS all-time leader in passes attempted without an interception (379).  That was early in his career.  He's thrown more picks lately.

This isn't intended as a knock on Denard, it's just that Russell Wilson can be extremely effective running the correct offense.  He'll do well at Wisconsin.

Belisarius

June 27th, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^

I wouldn't argue that he's good. I think he showed tremendous poise in NC State's victory over FSU last year. My point is that he's good, mostly judged by that very sort of intangible. He has experience, grit and a level-head. He's seen the elephant, and I think that can be as good as natural talent.

As far as fleet-feet and running skills, Denard is lightyears ahead of Wilson. But really, and again, only from what I saw last year, Denard has the better arm as well. Denard tended to make bad decisions on passing plays now and again, which I never saw Wilson make, but Denard's arm was stronger. I didn't see a tremendous degree of elite accuracy in Wilson, either.

I'm saying, as far as a veteran player goes, Wilson is good. I don't think he has half the raw talent or game-changing potential that Denard has. Of course, Wilson is a proven, consistent commodity, while Denard might be considered more of a phenom who may or may not reach Wilson's caliber of mental fortitude...that's the other way of looking at it. As a junior, wilson played more a consistent, clean game than  Denard did as a sophmore. But again, I don't think Wilson has the tools Denard has already displayed.

Belisarius

June 27th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^

I don't disagree. I'm saying even as a pocket passer, he's good-but-not-great. I'm saying this is good for Wisconsin, but not great for Wisconsin. That's really all I'm adding. With all the buzz around Wilson, I'm just aiming at some perspective.