|6 days 16 hours ago||Adidas always seems to have a||
Adidas always seems to have a few things that are complete garbage and then a few things that would be good but for one adidas throwing in one extra, completely unnecessary element. Like the shirts with the stripe on the sleeves that goes around the back. Why?
|1 week 6 days ago||Yeah, it's really hard to||
Yeah, it's really hard to compare drafts. Especially on class year. The whole draft has skewed much younger since the Fab Five left. In Webber's draft, there was one sophomore (webber), a freshman after a two-year mormon mission (Shawn Bradley) and five total juniors. The rest were all seniors.
On the other hand, there's a lot more international talent drafted these dayse.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||It's not really $8 for the 10||
It's not really $8 for the 10 basic channels, though, right? It's $8 plus whatever your internet service costs. And would that internet service remain the same under an a la carte model? I'd have to think that right now, with the vast majority of people still getting the vast majority of their TV from their cable/satelite provider, cable companies are willing to tolerate some cord cutters and price the internet as an add-on service for the more lucritive tv service. If there was suddenly little to no money in the TV business for the internet provider, they'll sure as hell be asking for a lot more money for the internet service.
This is where the cord cutting model always comes apart. People like to simply look at how much each channel costs their cable provider, add it to current internet service costs and say that's the cost of a hypothetical a la carte model. But that's not how it will work. The internet/cable provider is going to want the same amount of money under a new system and will charge accordingly. ESPN is going to need the same amount of money and will charge substantially more under an a la carte method to get there. The only way it really results in a substantial cost savings for all consumers is if there' some fundemental change in how the American Consumer gets its internet which cuts out the current cable/telecon companies that provide the service and also own a substantial amount of the content. Everything today is just too interconnected with the companies making too much money to just let changing the cable model result in substantial savings for the consumers.
|4 weeks 6 days ago||Make them $10 a game.||
Make them $10 a game. Enforce the validating thing to prevent sales to non-students. It could be completely covered by the AD surplus.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||I didn't mean to imply that||
I didn't mean to imply that all those thousands chasing football and basketball dreams are chasing pro contracts. Some are chasing friday night lights glory. Some just really like their chosen sports. The point is that there are over a million high school football players, many of whom have been playing since they were in elementary school. Can you honestly say that we wouldn't have a better collection of the country's 23 best soccer players if even half of those kids had instead chosen to throw their passion into soccer rather than football? Same thing for basketball and baseball.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||The better argument isn't||
The better argument isn't with the guys that make to the NBA/NFL, those guys are mostly physical ideals for their sport and position, its with the the thousands and thousands of guys who are excellent athletes who chase fooball and basketball dreams despite not being the physical ideal for those sports and thus never really having a chance to accomplish anything beyond non big-time college athletics. If soccer was the number one sport for these thousands of great athletes who are 6'2" and under and weigh less than 200 pounds, it's hard to figure that we wouldn't have a better national soccer team.
|7 weeks 1 day ago||Malzone looks like a good||
Malzone looks like a good recruit and his tape is impressive, so don't take what I'm about to say as a knock on him in the least. But, I imagine some of his sterling statistics are explained by those around him. His line seemed to provide great protection and he had an excellent stable of receivers to throw to. Numbers 1, 5, and 6 alone were all really impressive at getting open, catching the ball, and gaining YAC and then there were other guys that also made plays. I don't know if any of those guys were elite level recruits, but just like not being a pro prospect doesn't mean you weren't a great college player, not being an elite recruit doesn't mean you weren't a great high school player. It seemed like the whole offense had great high school players.
|9 weeks 12 hours ago||Counterpoints||
I don't really buy the "couldn't trade because of the Grant Hill deal." Denver was willing to trade Iverson for Billups. Besides, the Hill trade was more of a free agency thig then a trade. I think most NBA observers would say Orlando was stupid for giving up anything to be able to pay Grant Hill more money than he was probably willing to take as a straight up free agency signing. Sure, Dumars gets credit for a good eye in taking Wallace, but I don't see this as everyone saying "oooh, beware of that crafty Dumars guy." I will give Dumars the Rasheed trade, but I still don't see how that translates into nobody wanting to deal with him.
Maybe some FAs don't want to come to Detroit, and I'd agree that the Pistons were never in on the biggest signings of the 2009 class, but that shouldn't give him a pass for the contracts handed out to Gordon and Villanueva or some of his extensions like Rip Hamilton.
It's hard not to look back on Dumars' time and think that maybe he got a bit lucky putting that first contender together. Minnesota didn't want to resign Billups. Portland had grown tired of Rasheed. Blowing the Darko pick may have actually been a blessing to that particular team. He was also unlucky in that the team really should have had at least one more title, which would certainly have helped his rep. And some of his moves were defensible parts of a seemingly good plan. But everything that happened after the Billups-AI trade makes it hard to put too much faith in the fact that Dumars was at any point an excellent executive.
|9 weeks 14 hours ago||I'm guessing because the||
I'm guessing because the elder Dumars did such a poor job managing the Pistons' cap space?
|9 weeks 2 days ago||Lots of alums, but it takes||
Lots of alums, but it takes more than that to sell enough tickets for an entire tournament. You're talking 5 or 6 sessions with 18 to 20 thousand tickets apiece. With 3 or 4 sessions on week days with a decent portion of games during the day.
Sure you get a decent number of Michigan, Indiana, MSU, etc. fans to show up to one-off games in NYC or DC. But it's not like they're selling out the joint. Indiana played in front of about 10K for two games in MSG this year, the second against semi-local UConn. MSU drew similar numbers for its game at MSG against Georgetown. We had a good showing at barclays two years ago but were down to about 11K for the game this year against Stanford. These fan bases are really going to do better when it's possibly three or four straight days? Are the programs that are down that year or Northwestern really going to pull in a few thousand fans?
If the Big Ten is really going this way, they'll have to pray that Maryland is really good the year it's in DC and Rutgers is .... I can't even finish that sentence.
|10 weeks 6 days ago||said he was notified final||
said he was notified final four weekend, test occurred Mar. 28. So a week or two.
|11 weeks 13 hours ago||I think you're mis-counting||
I think you're mis-counting unless you really believe Spike has an NBA future.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||I hear what you're saying,||
I hear what you're saying, but people generally don't like to be wrong about their hand picked guy. So it's not so much that he has an incentive to keep him because he wants a mediocre program it's that he has a means of convincing himself that his guy really will get the job done.
An A.D., for better of for worse, is defined by his or her football coaching hire(s). Get that wrong and you're usually not long for your job. DB absolutely has an incentive to continue to think he got it right.
|11 weeks 3 days ago||I think it's a forced reality||
I think it's a forced reality caused by the athletic departpment taking the wrong lesson from the stubhub economy (well not wrong in a pure profit driven stance, but wrong from a perspective of doing what's best for your fans). It's pretty clear that the athletic department saw what tickets were going for on stubhub and took the lesson that for big games, they could charge a lot more, and similarly, season tickets were undervalued because those big games were worth so much. But what they failed to notice (or ignored) was the plummeting prices of the lesser games. By increasing prices so that the secondary market couldn't support the lesser game prices it's forced season ticket holders to either stomach a higher and higher cost for good games (higher season ticket prices plus a lower ability to recoup costs by selling lesser game tickets) or ultimately sell tickets to more attractive games. The pull of owning season tickets is obviously still strong, but the economic realities can't be ignored. This has put more and more tickets for good games on the secondary market, and ultimately led to more and more enemy colors in the stadium.
Eventually season ticket holders that buy for only the "good" games are going to be an extreme minority of the season ticket holders.
|12 weeks 11 hours ago||I'm fairly sure Gibson didn't||
I'm fairly sure Gibson didn't join his staff at Arizona. Didn't he end up at Pitt for a couple years?
Edit: I stand corrected, I guess he did spend a year there as you stated.
|12 weeks 3 days ago||Nobody is going to ask why||
Nobody is going to ask why you're not with the team, now are they? There's a limit to what he could have said legally about Gibbons' status according to university policy in disseminating confidential information. I'm not even sure he could have said Gibbons was expelled.
The problem people have with what he chose to say is that it suggests that Gibbons was unavailable through no fault of his own. In a world where a large, vocal contingent believes that sports culture on american campuses gives rise to sexual entitlement and "rape culture" among athletes, Hoke's statement is going to be very poorly received. It could be perceived, at worst, that Hoke was dismissive of the allegations and chose to lay cover for Gibbons. Now, I don't really believe that, but the problem with Hoke's statement is that it even gives rise to that interpretation.
If the wording of violation of team rules bothers you so much (even though, I'm fairly certain a rule for UM athletes is that they be in academic good standing, which Gibbons was not), Hoke could have simply said "he is no longer part of the team." Simple, with no explanation, yet still gives the clear implication that it was Gibbons' actions that caused his absence.
|12 weeks 3 days ago||He was expelled effective||
He was expelled effective Dec. 20 (told on Dec. 19), Hoke released the "family matters" statement on Dec. 23. I think it's pretty safe to say that Hoke knew then why his kicker hadn't made the trip.
|12 weeks 3 days ago||I answered this below.||
I answered this below. There's a huge range between "family reasons" and your proposed statement, that he legally couldn't say. "Violation of team rules" would have been infinitely more appropriate.
|12 weeks 3 days ago||As has been said a million||
As has been said a million times, he simply should have said "violation of team rules." Not being enrolled in the university is certainly a violation of team rules. While I agree it's silly to try and tie this comment into coaching ability, you have to see that it's a little troubling that Hoke knew Gibbons got kicked out because the school believed he raped a girl, yet still chose to lay a little cover for his absence from bowl week.
|12 weeks 3 days ago||He said something along the||
He said something along the lines of "Gibbons isn't travelling with the team for family reasons." Now, one could argue that it's technically true, but the clear implication was that Gibbons' absence had nothing to do with his own conduct.
|13 weeks 7 hours ago||I'm not naive enough to think||
I'm not naive enough to think that it would completely eliminate taking money, but if kids were making money from the school and taking extra on the side jeopardized that in addition to their scholarship/playing time less kids would be taking handouts.
Would there be those kids that still needed to be paid? Yes. Would some "bag men" still need to feel important and do this sort of thing? Yes. But I think there would be less of it and the playing field would level a bit.
|13 weeks 10 hours ago||Except that relies on||
Except that relies on Bielfeldt/Wilson/Doyle taking the majority of back-up minutes at the 4 and 5. That might work depending on Wilson and/or Doyle being able to come in and play the majority of those backup minutes at the 4. But if I'm GRIII, I'd like the probability of McGary/Donnal/Horford taking more 4 and 5 minutes than McGary/Donnal/Some combination of the other 3.
|13 weeks 6 days ago||Or he got a new phone.||
Or he got a new phone.
|14 weeks 10 hours ago||There's nothing particularly||
There's nothing particularly new here. The two roommates are being charged for their conduct which they stated occurred in sworn affidavits as part of the criminal investigation. Those affidavits were the "eye-witness" testimony that Winston's attorney argued cleared Winston of any rape allegations.
I'd be surprised if the purported victim participates in any FSU investigation. I think at this point, with Winston likely to be a millionaire, she's likely to wait and pursue it in the civil courts.
|14 weeks 13 hours ago||There's no "right" way to be||
There's no "right" way to be a leader. You can't judge leadership without being constantly present, you just can't. You can't present limited observations as a basis for judging leadership. The only people qualified to judge a player as a leader are the coaches and players around him every day, and they almost never share their true opinion.
|14 weeks 2 days ago||I like our chances if they||
I like our chances if they FINALLY allow the off the wall pass in college basketball.
|14 weeks 6 days ago||Not that it really matters,||
Not that it really matters, but I guess look at it this way. Who would you take last year's team as it was playing in the tournament (healthy McGary) or this year's team? I think the vast majority of the public would say last year's team even with this year's accomplishments in the Big Ten.
|14 weeks 6 days ago||What's funny is that a good||
What's funny is that a good number of the fans you'd consider a walmart fan are Michigan football fans and MSU basketball fans. This is generally lost on MSU fans.
|15 weeks 14 hours ago||If partaking in education||
If partaking in education simply became a requirement of the athletes job, it's no longer a scholarship and its no longer taxable income. It would be no different than when my employer provides inhouse continuing education opportunities that I have to complete to remain licensed. Those inhouse continuing ed. classes are not taxed.
That's just an example of ways around the tax thing. If players were suddenly treated like the employees they are, schools would figure out a way to make their taxable income as low as possible so that they would have to put forth less real money to pay the athletes.
|15 weeks 1 day ago||How did anything work 30||
How did anything work 30 years ago when athletic departments were generating a lot less income? Everyone connected with the athletic departments have made out like bandits in the last 30 years except for the athletes, or if you prefere the football and basketball players.
|15 weeks 1 day ago||That's the same deal players||
That's the same deal players have been getting for decades while Coaches, Conference Officials, TV Networks, Athletic Department Administrators, etc. have seen their compensation increase at astronomical rates. It's clear that as the money has increased, the majority of the people generating that money haven't seen their compensation increase. In the abstract, what players receive is a good deal. In reality, I find it hard to believe anyone can think they shouldn't be getting a better deal.
|15 weeks 1 day ago||I put it in quotes because I||
I put it in quotes because I don't think it's a great word but it seemed to best sum up your position.
I too think Beilein is a great coach, and ultimately I think he's better than Izzo, but why in the world wouldn't we want a guy coaching MSU who is likely going to be worse than Izzo? His teams are going to likely always be at least as talented, if not more talented, than the team we're fielding, so I think it is in our best interest if MSU doesn't get to retain that advantage.
|15 weeks 1 day ago||Are you really contending||
Are you really contending that a guy who has been to 6 final fours and won a national title in 20 seasons as a head coach at a program with limited success before his arrival isn't a "threat"? I dislike the guy as much as anyone, but you can't deny him success. The rational position for all Michigan fans is to want to see him leave and take the pretty good chances that the next guy won't be as good.
|15 weeks 2 days ago||I think it's referenced in||
I think it's referenced in this line: "Calipari and Pitino aren't so different. Both really just great recruiters who close deals really quickly. Especially Rick."
|15 weeks 3 days ago||Which makes McGary 9 months||
Which makes McGary 9 months older than Payne for their respective classes, no? And, FWIW, I have seen Payne's age listed as a negative. For some reason, the longer you're in college the less upside you're seen as having.
|15 weeks 3 days ago||But with the rookie||
But with the rookie pay-scale, getting into the first round isn't as big of a deal any more. It's much more important to be in the NBA for that 5th year contract (and if you can continue to play at a high level, the next free agent contract is what makes a huge difference in overall earnings). Someone will take a shot with him and if he can stay healthy he can start a nice career immediately. If he can't, coming back wouldn't have done him any good anyway, and at least he will have gotten some money out of it.
|15 weeks 3 days ago||The back is always going to||
The back is always going to be an issue and he's not getting any younger. I think if he's healthy enough to go full during pre-draft workouts, etc., he probably goes. Someone will give him a shot in the NBA and he gets to start putting in his time towards a free agent contract. If he comes back, he has to stay healthy or he might not even get a shot, and even if he does, he's still a year behind in terms of getting a big contract.
|15 weeks 3 days ago||McGary is also older for his||
McGary is also older for his class. He very well may feel that his best bet is to declare, trust in his ability to shine at the NBA pre-draft combine and point to his success during last year's tournament to highlight what he can do. The absolute worst thing for him would be if he comes back and has another injury.
As for GRIII, I feel like most players who consider going pro one year and don't, end up leaving the next year, even if the subsequent year raises more questions than answers.
I think believing that either player is better than 50-50 to return is looking through maize and blue colored glasses.
|15 weeks 3 days ago||Nik's gone, and he should be.||
Nik's gone, and he should be. The other two could really go either way.
|15 weeks 3 days ago||To me, wins and losses mean a||
To me, wins and losses mean a lot more in basketball than they do football, at least when it comes to indication of overall quality of a team. In football, one play (say an interception deep in an opponents territory returned for a TD) can turn a win into a loss, making the result not necesserily indicative of who was the better team on that day. In basketball, there's just too many possessions for one play to have that kind of impact. Pomeroy can point out "fluke" endings in a couple close games, but the fact that Tennessee was in position to lose twice to A&M is not a good sign about the quality of this team.
Tennessee has talent, you can't veat Virgina by 35 and not be talented. But that same team put on the worst display of basketball I've ever seen in their loss at Florida. This is not the 6th best team in the country. No how, no way.
|15 weeks 6 days ago||They've won in blowouts,||
They've won in blowouts, including over some good opponents, and lost close games. Means they have had good "per possession" stats. For a system like Kenpom that relies heavily on the "per possession" stats, a team like that will be ranked higher than their record would reflect.
|15 weeks 6 days ago||Plenty of games where they've||
Plenty of games where they've called everything (Louisville-Manhattan, Baylor-Nebraska).
|15 weeks 6 days ago||The last two reviews show||
The last two reviews show everything that's wrong the NCAA's system.
|15 weeks 6 days ago||St. Louis won...||
St. Louis won...
|15 weeks 6 days ago||Manhattan followed not long||
Manhattan followed not long thereafter.
|16 weeks 9 hours ago||I think he is overly whiny on||
I think he is overly whiny on the court, but for the most part, you're right.
|16 weeks 2 days ago||But by insisting that||
But by insisting that potential causes may include vaccinations, despite loads of scientific data to the contrary, you have taken a position.
|16 weeks 2 days ago||Rephrased to what you're||
Rephrased to what you're actually saying: I don't care how many studies have shown there is no link between vaccination and autism, keep studying until you find one that justifies my position.
|16 weeks 2 days ago||I don't object because it's||
I don't object because it's "bad" or insulting, I object because it's confusing. If it were somehow insulting, then it would be easily understood. Instead, you get topic titles like this one, with no context to know whether we're discussing Ohio State, the University of Ohio, or the State of Ohio, aside from some rule for ohio vs. OHIO that apparently few know.
If Hoke wants to call them Ohio because that's how he's always thought of them, I don't really have a problem with that. I think it makes little sense, but whatever. I do, however, think its silly for part of the fanbase to adopt the naming mechanism when it makes no sense and didn't exist in the fanbase 5 years ago.
|16 weeks 2 days ago||Unvaccinated children are the||
Unvaccinated children are the vehicle by which these diseases that were once essentially gone from the U.S. get spread to adults who's previous vaccinations are no longer effective. It doesn't really matter what the typical anti-vax parent looks like, the fact that they exist has severely hurt herd immunity and can lead to outbreaks among people who would never buy into the vaccination-autism b.s.
|16 weeks 2 days ago||All the more reason to call||
All the more reason to call them Ohio State.
|16 weeks 3 days ago||Yeshiva is a small, top-50||
Yeshiva is a small, top-50 university with an acceptance rate above 80%. I say again that acceptance rate is not particularly insiteful. There could be a myriad of reasons for why a university's rate is high or low. For instance, some state schools have low to no admission fees, and because they're less expensive than private or out of state schools, they get lots of applicants that have little hope of getting in.
I think you should refrain from making generalities about Regional Universities when you so clearly have little idea about the huge differences within the classification. Some are more akin to private liberal arts colleges, others are practically regional within their own state.
And again, what about Villanova? Their admitted student stats compare favorably to Wisconsin.
|16 weeks 3 days ago||That's one statistic, and not||
That's one statistic, and not a particularly insiteful one. I took two seconds to look up middle 50% ACT composite scores for Creighton is 24-30, MSU is 23-38. Creighton similarly does better in GPA. Villanova, another "Regional University" only accepts 45.6% and their ACT middle 50 is 30-33. How do those numbers compare to National Universities?
|16 weeks 3 days ago||If you really did that, I||
If you really did that, I think you would be surprised what you see, especially for some of the better Regional universities. I don't know for sure, because I refuse to rewared US News financially for their stupid rankings, so I don't have quick access to all the data, but I bet the top couple Regional Universities in each region would be comparable to the middle of the Big Ten according to your standards.
Regional Universities aren't simply lesser schools than so-called National Universities, they are in a different category because they don't offer the same sort of doctorate programs. They have different missions. Some are better than others. None are at the level of the Ivy's, but there are some excellent institutions none-the-less.
|16 weeks 3 days ago||If you accept that the US||
If you accept that the US News and World Report rankings that they are discussing is largely, if not entirely, about undergraduate education, then I don't think you can accept that "National Universities" are DI, "Regional Universities" are DII, and presumably "liberal arts colleges" (or whatever US News calls them) are DIII. There are many, many schools that aren't national universities that provide a better undergraduate education than many national universities.
I agree that you can't really compare a big public national university to a smaller private school, but I'd say that the insistence on ranking institutions in what US News determines are sufficiently similar groupings is equally silly.
|16 weeks 3 days ago||I agree that either method is||
I agree that either method is superior. The problem is, basketball really does produce 18 year olds that should be playing in the NBA (LeBron), but not nearly as many as the number of 18 year olds that think they're ready. So to prevent too many 18 year olds from flaming out, they do the one-and-done rule as a half-assed measure to solve the problem.
It's also not only the NBA's fault. I think college coaches would bristle under the uncerrtainty of not knowing when an NBA team is going to yank a player out of college, like they can under the NHL system. College coaches have already effectively killed the NBA draft withdrawl window.
I'm not sure the baseball system is in the best interest of the NBA, because too many 18 year olds would still make mistakes, though, if the D-league gets bigger this should be less of a problem. And I think college coaches would prevent the hockey system. So I think we're stuck with half-methods that don't help either the NBA, the NCAA, or the players they are supposed to care about.
|16 weeks 3 days ago||Draft Stock in 2014 v. 2015||
He's analyzing what choices our current pro prospects should make in light of this new rule. The theory being that one-and-done players make up about half of the first round every year. If the rule is going into effect for the next draft, then there are 15 would-be one-and-done players that won't be entering the 2015 draft. Anyone considering entering the 2014 draft, should theoretically have much higher draft stock in 2015. If you're a mid first-round pick in 2014 you might be top-10 in 2015. If you're an early second round pick in 2014, you're likely a first round lock in 2015. This should matter to some of our current players, thus the post.
|16 weeks 6 days ago||They both travelled. The||
They both travelled. The Neb. one was one that is more typically called.
|16 weeks 6 days ago||A harder shot than a layup||
A harder shot than a layup (definitely) or an uncontested pull-up (probably), but still a better look than good defense would give up in that situation.
|16 weeks 6 days ago||I think he's both. He's||
I think he's both. He's disruptive off the ball, seems to do a good job at getting in lanes, and rebounds at or above his weight. But, I think he gets himself out of position in on-ball defense and gets beat too easily. He also has a tendency to not use his long arms to disrupt jump shooters.
Edit: I should say that I don't think he's an awful defender in any way. Just not a particularly good on-ball defender. The fact that he's the guy we tend to put on our opponents best guard says a lot about why we struggle on defense.
|16 weeks 6 days ago||That's going to be much||
That's going to be much harder on LeVert than it will be on opposing PGs.
|16 weeks 6 days ago||I think you're being awfully||
I think you're being awfully generous. He got beat almost immediately after the offensive player caught the ball well outside of shooting range. We gave up a point blank shot that the kid probably makes 75% of the time. That's not good defense.
|16 weeks 6 days ago||Horford is not good in the||
Horford is not good in the middle of the 1-3-1.
|16 weeks 6 days ago||Timeouts||
I like what the NBA does. If you call a timeout, the tv timeout is cancelled, if you don't, most of the time a tv timeout is charged to one of the teams. The problem with NCAA isn't necesserily having a timeout every 4 minutes. It's having a timeout called, then a whistle, then the TV timeout. That's what kills the game.
The NCAA needs to either follow the NBA's lead or greatly reduce the number of team timeouts. I'd propose 6 team timeouts, charging two tv timeouts a half to each team if the requisite number of timeouts haven't been called in the half. Alternatively, if they want to keep the official timeouts, I'd reduce team timeouts to 2 per team. You get one to stop a run if you need to, and one to set up a last second play. Doing all this would reduce repetitive stopages and end the frustration of the last minute of a basketball game taking 10 minutes to complete.
I don't think TV should have a big problem with this. Game time would become more consistent, and TV ends up not using all the timeouts for commercial breaks anyway at the end of the game.
|17 weeks 12 hours ago||Do you have a proposal? I'm||
Do you have a proposal? I'm not sure what you do to stop this, or even if it's something that should be stopped. The shoe companies aren't interested in promoting a specific school, they're interested in promoting their shoes. What they hope to do is get the next MJ, Kobe, LeBron, etc. to have a permanent, profitable relationship with their shoes. So they invest in kids early and hope that the investment keeps the kid with a college sponsored by the same shoe company and eventually, when the kid turns pro, they sign a sponsorship deal with the player that benefits both player and shoe company.
If it seems scummy, it's only because the shoe companies have to pretend that these basketball players are amateurs. If colleges gave up their exclusive deals with shoe companies than there would be no guiding of players to "adidas schools" or "nike schools." But, I bet you can guess the odds of that happening.
|17 weeks 6 days ago||Yep. And if you look at a||
Yep. And if you look at a post like opponents watch, a quick counting shows 11 different "States" mentioned. Obviously Michigan is mentioned a lot in the same post, but stories like that, which are really not obsessive in the least, go a long way toward the apparent results from that word-cloud, or whatever you call it.
|18 weeks 1 day ago||I think it's a little higher||
I think it's a little higher than that when you weed out botched kick attempts. A quick google search says it's about 48%. Maybe it would still be a pretty even split, kickers are pretty damn good these days, maybe they could get to 96%. In any event, I still like my idea as kicking has become too easy in the NFL. Non-drastic changes in the rules of the game (changes that would be hardly noticeable to the casual fan) could revert the game back to more acceptable risk/reward ratios for decisions with respect to kicking a fg/pat.
|18 weeks 1 day ago||Wouldn't this make the 2-pt||
Wouldn't this make the 2-pt conversion the obvious decision in nearly every scenario? If you make the conversion 50% of the time, that's better than 1-point 90% of the time. Even conservative football coaches should figure that one out.
If they want the PAT to be nearly automatic, but not as automatic as it is today, and at the same time limit the influence of kicking on the game, they should do some combination of the following: narrow the goal posts, widen the hashmarks, and spot the PAT at the point where the ball crossed the endzone with the hashmark being the outer limit. PAT conversion probably goes down to 97% from 99% and FGs in general become more difficult. The game gets better. Problem solved without getting too drastic.
|18 weeks 3 days ago||See, I agreed with much of||
See, I agreed with much of the article, except for the last "question." His national title team was almost entirely freshman and sophomores with one upperclassmen that he didn't recruit (Darius Miller). The final four team the year before had a bit more experience, but not a lot more. He showed he can win with bringing in a new bumper class of freshmen every year. It just hasn't worked the last two years.
|22 weeks 6 days ago||Looks like they decided to||
Looks like they decided to take their 80's road top and combine it with their 80's road-alternate bottom for some unknown reason.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||But it's not just additional||
But it's not just additional scholarship dollars. If you assume 25 a year results in about 105 football scholarships a year, that means 20 extra scholarships to be added to women's athletics. Maybe this can be addressed to a degree by upping scholarship limits for individual women's sports, but those are already pretty high. What it likely means is adding at least one more entire sport.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||There's plenty of big five||
There's plenty of big five conference members that wouldn't be happy about an added 40 scholarships or so.
|23 weeks 2 days ago||This is the right solution,||
This is the right solution, but creates huge title IX problems. The two dozen or so schools that are turning a profit wouldn't mind, but I doubt the rest of FBS would go along with it.
|24 weeks 13 hours ago||I think all of the Big Ten||
I think all of the Big Ten records are off... I also imagine the FSU section was written before the Iowa win.
|24 weeks 1 day ago||Getting kicked off the team||
Getting kicked off the team (and possibly having to leave school due to a loss of scholarship money) is a bit extreme, no? It's hard to imagine anyone suffering such dire consequences for what amounts to a citation.
|25 weeks 9 hours ago||No, it means the Big Ten is||
No, it means the Big Ten is going to be stacked next year. Right? RIGHT?!?!?!
|25 weeks 2 days ago||Hypothesis||
Just a guess, but isn't there a good chance that Riddell makes our helmets, but, as all jerseys are produced by Adidas, they can't use the full Michigan uniform in what is essentially an advertisement?
|25 weeks 5 days ago||That's probably what Syracuse||
That's probably what Syracuse fans were telling themselves when they hired GERG.
|25 weeks 5 days ago||I agree, but that was a one||
I agree, but that was a one time, extremely unique occurrence. I won't consider it a negative as to his coaching ability if he weren't able to keep the teem together and I don't think it's necesserily indicative of positive college coaching ability that he was able to prevent mass defections.
|25 weeks 5 days ago||I'm not sure there's enough||
I'm not sure there's enough information on BOB to make that determination. When the mass defections didn't happen before the 2012 season, he wasn't working with that depleted of a roster. And he was even able to lure in an impact freshman for 2013. It's this year and next where the sanctions are really going to take hold.
BOB had a reasonable roster and reasonable success. Nothing great, nothing bad while working in less than ideal circumstances. It probably would have taken another 3 years or so to establish a real baseline of what BOB could do as a college coach.
|25 weeks 6 days ago||I would guess you don't||
I would guess you don't generally do one when it's a completely new staff. The head coach's press conference serves for the whole staff, even if that staff hasn't been hired yet. Though, I'm sure someone could dig up a Mattison or Borges quote or two shortly after hiring. I'm sure they were made available early in their Michigan tenures.
|25 weeks 6 days ago||I don't understand the idea||
I don't understand the idea that questioning whether this was Brandon's or Hoke's call is somehow implying that Hoke is dumb. Hoke has a different perspective than the rest of us, may have been fairly insulated from the criticism, and may have placed more value on loyalty and "family atmosphere" of the coaching staff than did Brandon. There's a hundred reasons why Hoke may not have wanted to make a change that have nothing to do with him being dumb. Many think keeping Borges would have been a dumb move, but that doesn't remotely mean anyone thinks Hoke is actually dumb.
We had insiders saying up until the moment this was announced that Hoke wasn't going to make any changes. It's not unreasonable to conclude from that talk and every public statement Hoke made all year that a change wouldn't be made without Brandon stepping in. I don't understand why it's so offensive to wonder if that's what ultimately happened.
|26 weeks 7 hours ago||It would probably matter||
I look around at some of the better programs and see head coaches that will look for every advantage to win games. No detail is too small. Whether it's a formation on kickoff to get optimal starting field position, or a punt formation that allows for best coverage, on any other of the myriad of ways to improve a team's chances to win a football game, the better coaches seem to do it. These better coaches also are quick to look elsewhere when a coach isn't getting the job done. The best coaches will do what it takes. Replacing Borges was the first sign in a while that Hoke is willing to do everything it takes to make Michigan the best. If he did it because DB ordered him to in order to placate donors, then it would be more evidence that Hoke just doesn't have it in him at this level. So, yes, I'd say it probably matters.
The only way it wouldn't matter is if Hoke made the decision, but did it because he knew replacing Borges and then seeing only modest improvement on offense would still probably be enough to get him to 2015, then no, it wouldn't matter who's decision it was.
|26 weeks 8 hours ago||Brian has said this a couple||
Brian has said this a couple times. The only evidence that's not pure insider talk would be the Nebraska game where Bellomy came in rather than moving Gardner. The stated reason for why it was Bellomy and not Gardner, that Gardner hadn't taken enough snaps, rang a bit hollow to me but could very well be correct.
I think they did believe the size/speed Gardner could provide to WR was greater value than being a backup QB, but doesn't necesserily mean that it was because they really felt Bellomy was a viable backup or that Gardner couldn't play QB.
|26 weeks 8 hours ago||Amen on the last point. I do||
Amen on the last point.
I do still think you're being a bit harsh on the 2010 offense saying they stalled agaisnts better defenses. If you throw out the bowl game as being more a result of quitting on the coach/season, they only struggled to score against MSU (17 points with a missed FG and two interceptions in the end zone and 7 against OSU where they moved the ball well all game and I think Denard missed part of it with an injury). This isn't all that different than Carr's better offenses. 2003 got stymied by USC in the Rose Bowl, 1999 which is the year you're probably thinking of scored 18 against Syracuse and 21 at Wisconsin, and 2000 scored 13 against Wisconsin and 14 against State.
A couple down games does not negate an entire seasons worth of offense. If you wanted to say 2003 or 1999 were better than 2010 on offense, I'm fine with that. I think it's a lot closer than you're admitting though.
|26 weeks 8 hours ago||We lost 6 games where we gave||
We lost 6 games where we gave up 34, 38, 41, 48, 37, and 52 points, yet you focus on the three games we scored less than 20 points as the reason RR didn't stick around. To win 3 more games, we would have had to score 27 or more points in every game that season. Without doing a completely exhaustive search, know how many teams pulled that off this season? Two: Florida State and Texas A&M. So, a national champion caliber offense and one lead by three first round draft picks. But I guess I'll concede the point, it is possible to be truly attocious on defense and still finish 9-4.
|26 weeks 9 hours ago||I think there's a reasonable||
I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the 2010 offense was better than any of the Carr offenses. I think there is also a reasonable argument that a couple of the Carr offenses may have been better. What I think is silly is pointing to a couple bad games to make the point that the offense wasn't that great (not to mention including games like Iowa and Wisconsin to make that case).
I don't think anyone is holding to the illusion that the 2010 offense were world beaters. In the annals of Michigan football, though, it goes down as one of the best despite being extremely young at almost every key position. Not the greatest of all time, but pretty damn good. If it had been paired with even a mediocre defense, it would have been a pretty good season. Pair it with a typical Michigan defense and it would have been a great season.
I understand why at the time people had to downplay 2010's offense. People wanted Rodriguez gone and any credit to him was a threat to keep him around. It's been three years. Can't we be reasonable now? Hate him for his defense. Hate him for his special teams. Hate him for his team quitting on him in a bowl game. But can't anyone just admit that his offense was pretty good? (this last paragraph isn't entirely aimed at you)
|26 weeks 9 hours ago||Just like it's unreasonable||
Just like it's unreasonable to expect a defense to get stops on EVERY drive, it's unreasonable to expect an offense to score a TD on EVERY drive. And remember that FG kicking was so bad in that season that lots of drives came away empty despite good work by the offense. Even considering all that, the offense did keep them in games (Indiana, Illinois, PSU to some degree).
Yes, they had a couple bad games. Almost every unit in college football does. But to focus on the little struggles instead of the massive success most of the season is even more silly. The 2010 team was not good, but very little of that blame falls on the offense. Only people with an irrational hatred of Rich Rodriguez would really argue otherwise.
|26 weeks 10 hours ago||This has been rehashed a||
This has been rehashed a million times, but in at least a couple of those games the defense never gave the offense a chance to put up big numbers in "meaningful" action. A couple lost possessions on offense and it was all over. Yes, the offense wasn't amazing in every single game, but the numbers don't lie (to rebutt what's about to come, no, the stats weren't put up against 4th stringers after the game had been decided). The offense was pretty damn explosive, it's just that the defense was even more explosive.
|26 weeks 10 hours ago||I also don't think it's||
I also don't think it's particularly uncommon for one coach on a staff to not be heavily involved in recruiting. I'd imagine most coaches think it's necessary to have at least one member of staff on campus at any given time, and if it's mostly the same coach all the time, it might not be a problem.
|26 weeks 12 hours ago||I think I'd be more||
I think I'd be more disappointed in a bad year from the defense next year than a bad year from the offense. With the possible caveat being Pipkins not being able to come back healthy and contribute. The back 7 is talented and experienced and the line finally should have some bodies. I don't think we have to be MSU's death machine from this year, but we should at least strike some fear on that side of the ball.
Offensively, there are still a lot of questions in my mind with respect to available talent. If we don't see any improvement, I'd obviously be disappointed, but slower progression will be more forgivable.
|26 weeks 12 hours ago||There's almost no chance that||
There's almost no chance that Gardner is a better option at WR than what we can pull from our depth there.
|26 weeks 13 hours ago||And ultimately chose the more||
And ultimately chose the more mobile Kieth Price over the less mobile Montana kid at Washington in that competition. He may actually prefer a dual threat QB to Borges' statuesque preference (if that was indeed his preference, not exactly clear). To echo everything above, hard to see DG still not being clearly the choice at QB.
|26 weeks 13 hours ago||Almost every coach in America||
Almost every coach in America spends some time each offseason exchanging ideas with a different staff. If you don't, your stuff is going to become awfully stale. Albamama may very well have been willing to move on from Nussmeier (they have the money, and Saban has the pull to keep any assistant they want who is willing to stay), but I doubt Lane Kiffin's pre-bowl visit really had that much to do with it. It was either a decision that had been in the works for a while or simply a case of Nussmeier wanting something else.
|26 weeks 14 hours ago||Blaming the second loss (at||
Blaming the second loss (at least) on the offense seemps pretty strange, though, doesn't it?
He seems like he could be a good coach, but I can't say it's a slam dunk. I'm not really sure there's enough information on him to judge. His offenses at Alabama held pretty steady from his predecessor and I'm tempted to just outright dismiss those years. Who wouldn't have success with all the talent they've been accumulating? Washington had a pretty similar performance after he left, if not outright better. Of course, being years 4 and 5 out of the Willingham mess couldn't hurt. And as Brian pointed out, he was operating under an offensive coach.
I don't know what we're getting with him. What is clear is that Sark and Saban both were impressed enough with him to hire him, so I take that as a good sign. But, I worry that either as a directive from Hoke or personal preference, he's going to come in and try and run Alabama's offense without Alabama's players. I'd prefer more of the Washington hybrid than straight up Alabama, at least with Gardner at QB. But we shall see. Either way, I think this is a better situation than continuing with Borges, and I think it will buy Hoke another year no matter what.
|26 weeks 1 day ago||Wasn't he out of the SEC for||
Wasn't he out of the SEC for just one year? His system wasn't new to anyone in the SEC.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||Unless you mean the NFL,||
Unless you mean the NFL, which I'm not sure he's getting, there isn't a better job right now. And if he falls off next year (always a risk at Vandy) he's not getting a high profile job next year such as Florida. I think he knows it's the time for a move and he'll take it.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||I imagine this was targeted||
I imagine this was targeted at High School coaches. Some of the conclusions seem questionable at higher levels.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||I don't know if I'd want to||
I don't know if I'd want to regularly watch something like what ESPN did with Spielman, et al., but if it was being broadcast in parallel, I think I'd be likely to at least occasionally switch over to get a general feel for what some other supposedly impartial football guys felt was going on. And I'd probably be much more inclined to watch a replay of that version than the traditional play-by-play and color man broadcast.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||Maybe I'm just too young to||
Maybe I'm just too young to know, but did John Madden get connected to every job opening after he retired ? Obviously media wasn't as all-encompassing back then as it is now, so he couldn't be quite as visible, but Madden was a young, super bowl champion coach who was on tv and extremely popular.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||At this point it's getting||
At this point it's getting pretty hard to categorize by pro-style and non-pro-style. I mean, aren't all passing spread offenses generally pro-style, if we define pro-style as merely being systems used in the NFL? The NFL has generally done away with the fullback and put lots of pass catchers on the field and let the QB go to work, with lots of no-huddle, up-tempo and plays called at the line.
If you want to limit pro-style to teams that use lots of under-center or lots of classic FB or two TE sets, you might be able to put together a formula. Of course this would take a ton of effort and knowledge of each individual team. I'm also not sure how useful it would be to still follow your formula. I think there are lots of spread passing teams that aren't your classic pro-style that are not all that interested in running the ball efficiently. To include them in the comparison would skew things, in my opinion.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||I was going to post exactly||
I was going to post exactly this. Seems like the obvious answer.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||Or when it leaks from the NFL||
Or when it leaks from the NFL that there were concerns about the nature of his positive test.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||Yeah, I don't get it. And||
Yeah, I don't get it. And it's not like he was that great of a coach. He was fine, certainly above average. But people act like he was Belichick or Parcells.
Why is Gruden mentioned for every opening while Brian Billick never gets mentioned. They're practically the same guy.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||Agree with you. Seems he is||
Agree with you. Seems he is mostly pissed that he wasn't asked to give his blessing. But, as he seemed to think that every football coach in america should be begging for the job, maybe the rest of the Texas higher ups thought he was too delusional to be involved.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||Speaking of Auburn (posting||
Speaking of Auburn (posting here because I really don't want to start a thread for this), anyone notice Auburn's O-line depth chart? Starters have three 3rd year players and two 2nd year players. Backups are four 2nd year players and one 3rd year player. I'm really going to be sick of the youth excuse if Auburn can do what they did with a near identical 2-deep as to what we'll have next year.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||I disagree. FSU just played||
I disagree. FSU just played their worst game of the season and beat Auburn despite the experts agreeing that the first half was the best Auburn had played all season. FSU has the athletes and skill players to make MSU pay for their defensive scheme. And on the other end, FSU would shut down MSU.
FSU's annihilation of Clemson at Clemson was by far the most impressive win on the season. They are a deserved national champion and I can't see how anyone argue that they wouldn't be the hands-down favorite in a 4 team playoff.
|26 weeks 2 days ago||The SEC, where things like||
The SEC, where things like loses to Tennessee magically disappear.
|26 weeks 3 days ago||Not sure how they can call||
Not sure how they can call that unsportsmanlike penalty on FSU then call nothing when Mason spiked the ball and gave a heisman pose.
|26 weeks 3 days ago||Kentucky isn't the most||
Kentucky isn't the most talent-rich state. Thus, to be successful, Louisville needs to get some talent from a talent rich state. Florida just happens to be such a talent rich state and Louisville has had 1-2 conference members in that state for the length of Strong's tenure. It would make sense to recruit kids from Florida.
|26 weeks 3 days ago||I think Charlie Strong will||
I think Charlie Strong will have more support from the Texas administration and old timers than Rich Rod got here. Mack was himself an outsider, and most can see the deterioration of the Texas program since Colt McCoy. The fact that Texas is soft isn't some secret. Compare all that to Michigan where Carr was merely the extension of the 40 year old line of coaches dating back to Bo's hiring, where Carr had been a couple plays away from a national title shot just the year before, and the fact that Michigan had gotten soft was whispered about but never openly acknowledged by Michigan insiders. There were far more reasons why the "Michigan Men" were resistant to change than there would be at Texas.
Now, is Strong necesserily the guy everyone wanted? Probably not when they had it in their heads they could actually land Saban. But Smart's a good hire, and should be able to succeed early (that there's no drastic scheme change also helps). Any doubters will come around, as they do for most new coaches.
I also don't get the Florida thing. Of course Charlie Strong recruited Florida when he was at Florida and Louisville. It was natural to do so. I don't know why anyone thinks he won't turn his attention to the state of Texas now that he's there. I imagine his connections in Florida will solely be about going after 5-star guys.
|26 weeks 3 days ago||One very big difference is||
One very big difference is that FSU knows that Auburn is likely the best team they've played all season (I say likely because it's possible they're no better than Clemson), whereas Ohio State assumed the victory over us clinched the national title.
|26 weeks 3 days ago||I have a tough time believing||
I have a tough time believing that Auburn has a shot. Three of Auburn's four legit wins took an insane amount of luck. In addition to the obvious miracles against Georgia and Alabama, they had the good fortune of knocking Johnny Manziel out of the game against A&M. Manziel left the game in the 4th quarter before a 3rd and goal from the 2 with his team up 7, he re-entered the game after missing a full series down 4. They lost by that same 4 point total. It's not hard to imagine that if Manziel stays in, they go up two TD's and Auburn's miracle run is over before it even begins.
Florida State meanwhile has the best defense Auburn will have faced all season and probably the best offense. I would not be surprised to see a blowout.
|26 weeks 4 days ago||It's not the worst idea,||
It's not the worst idea, actually. Petrino has always been able to coach (though there are some serious questions about his recruiting chops after Louisville's and Arkansas' collapses after Petrino left) and he's certainly available. Louisville might even be able to convince themselves that this time around Petrino could be interested in sticking around at an ACC job.
I don't think he'd be my first choice, but they could do worse.
|26 weeks 4 days ago||At this point last yeare, I||
At this point last yeare, I don't think anyone was talking about Bortles, Carr, or Mettenberger as serious NFL QB candidates. Even Boyd was a big question mark. I'd guess by next year there will be a handful of names you're not even thinking about that are NFL prospects (hopefully, one Devin Gardner).
|26 weeks 5 days ago||Brown is a senior.||
Brown is a senior.
|26 weeks 6 days ago||24 straight wins, zero||
24 straight wins, zero championships
|26 weeks 6 days ago||Why? Great pedigree at a big||
Why? Great pedigree at a big time school. Success as a head coach. Almost no hire is a slam dunk, but this is about as good as you'd normally get.
|26 weeks 6 days ago||We all know that three||
We all know that three classes of linemen have virtually produced only three starters (Lewan, Schofield, and Glasgow). This is obviously less than ideal. It's also far from an unheard of occurrence. But, by next year, that's down to two classes that haven't produced. They're followed by classes that are supposed to be loaded with young talent. We should be able to put together a reasonable line from what we have, even if Glasgow is the only contributing upper classmen.
Nobody is saying that experience doesn't matter. But it's not the only factor. We return 36 offensive line starts. We have young talent. We have a couple upperclassmen that likely won't play much, but they exist. In short, the lack of upperclassmen is no longer crippling. If our line play is again so bad as to cripple the whole offense, I know which regime should shoulder the majority of the blame, and it isn't the last one.
|26 weeks 6 days ago||But again, don't have to make||
But again, don't have to make it perfect. They could use the visitor's clubhouse as the home clubhouse and create something passable for visitors for the season. There will have to be some outside of the box thinking, but almost anything that can utilize what is undamaged is going to be better than any of the alternatives.
|26 weeks 6 days ago||I think he's generally right,||
I think he's generally right, even if he's underselling the damage. Damage seems limited to one side of the suites. Even if those aren't operable for the season, only need to stabalize the section so that the rest of the stadium is usable for it to be a better situation than any alternatives. I would think they can produce a makeshift stadium in 3.5 months before the season opens.
|26 weeks 6 days ago||He hasn't blocked well as a||
He hasn't blocked well as a TE and you want to make him an OT?
|26 weeks 6 days ago||We're young still, yes, but||
We're young still, yes, but by next season it's time to stop blaming anyone but the current staff and some bad injury luck (bryant, christian pace, he'd still be around, right?). We will have what's supposed to be a monster class in their third year, what's supposed to be a monster class in their second year and some other odd parts floating around. If we can't put together a semi-competent line from that assortment of talent, the primary source of blame will be the staff's inability to identify and/or develop offensive line talent.
Being great isn't a reasonable expectation, hardly any line is great year after year, but approaching good is completely reasonable.
|27 weeks 2 hours ago||If you want to be guaranteed||
If you want to be guaranteed a chance to tie in the last possession, don't be down by three points.
|27 weeks 9 hours ago||I didn't realize that Iowa's||
I didn't realize that Iowa's two scoring drives covered a grand total of 5 yards.
|27 weeks 10 hours ago||It would largely depend on||
It would largely depend on how that 9-3 came to be, I'd think. But even if it's 9 close wins and 3 blowout loses to ND, MSU, and OSU, I think Hoke would get a fifth year.
|27 weeks 10 hours ago||One big difference is that||
One big difference is that Alabama was arrogant enough to believe that they were going to just waltz in and roll Utah. I'm assuming there was no such feeling for us towards KSU.
|27 weeks 11 hours ago||After five years in the||
After five years in the league, you really think Stafford's mechanical quirks and decision making are going to get better?
Stafford's a fine QB, but he's never going to be elite. Sort of like lots of other QBs you should be happy to have (Ryan, Eli Manning, Flacco, Cutler, Rivers, Romo, etc.)
|27 weeks 11 hours ago||I guess my question is do you||
I guess my question is do you believe a coach is ever simply bad at designing and calling plays? I seriously think you can't rise to the level of D1 OC without being able to put together plays and a game plan without some level of logical reasoning. Yet there are OC's that get fired every year because the offenses are outright bad. Is it your opinion that these guys are pretty much awlays fired because of the other reasons you listed and not because they just weren't very good at designing and executing a scheme?
To me, one element that I think you continue to deemphasize is that Borges has a frustrating habit of calling plays that we're bad at. Yes, it's easy to say those are simply execution problems or a failure to "properly instill the knowledge of the scheme and technique," but to me, when you continue to call plays we're demonstrably bad at, at some point that's also bad play calling. I think a lot of the complaints around here about "play-callin" are merely this.
|27 weeks 12 hours ago||It's easier to shore up a||
It's easier to shore up a defense with inexpensive free agents and youth than it is to replace a starting QB. In the NFL today, you can't win with a bad QB. Cutler's in the realm of your Eli Manning's and Joe Flacco's. Bears would be very unlikely to find a QB replacement that would allow them to win, even if they could magically shore up the defense through free agent signings.
|27 weeks 12 hours ago||Rookies often suck. Sure, if||
Rookies often suck. Sure, if you can land Andrew Luck and sign him to a rookie deal, that's great. If you're drafting where the Bears are, there's a pretty good chance you get a Christian Ponder or a Brandon Weeden.
There's no reason to believe that Cutler when provided talent which has finally been assembled for him, can't have an Eli Manning or Joe Flacco type playoff run. Signing him was certainly better than any Bears alternative.
|27 weeks 13 hours ago||I guess this has always been||
I guess this has always been my thing with your defenses of Borges. I get where you're coming from. You're a coach. You know that every play ever designed has some logical basis. And there is no OC who makes it to the D1 level that will put together a game plan without a reason for its ultimate design. So you only want to view through that prism of what was Borges' logic for that play design or that play's role in the overall scheme or game plan. This is a coach's mentality. I get it. I grew up around tons of coaches, I understand how they think.
So it becomes easy for you to sit back and listen to complaints about "play-calling" or a specific play that didn't work and simply reject the criticism as coming from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. But what you miss is that you don't need to know the underlying logic of each and every play and how they fit together to recognize when something doesn't work. Borges and co have had too many utter failures on offense for there NOT to be play calling and scheme deficiencies. That you can identify a logical reason for why these failures occurred is almost immaterial. At some point you have to see the forest for the trees.
|27 weeks 13 hours ago||It's equally annoying when||
It's equally annoying when coaches seem to think play calling is never the problem.
In a game of relatively equally matched talent, it's usually somewhere in the middle between players unable to execute a solid game plan and coaches being unable to put forth a workable game plan.
|27 weeks 14 hours ago||To answer your last two||
To answer your last two questions, I'd say they don't need elite DB play for their scheme. They have to be good, but you don't need to be elite if your run defense is stout and you get pressure on the QB when they're forced to pass. MSU's system is one giant gamble that their pressure, both on the QB and on the WR's near the line, will leave the offense unable to make the hard plays and take advantage when their DB's get beat. MSU's DB's get beat and potential NFL QBs can and have certainly taken advantage.
Currently, according to ESPN, there is one MSU secondary player seeing action in the NFL, and I don't think he's a starter. They haven't been elite in the back end (Dennard is obviously a good player) and it's shown. The only teams (with the exception of Nebraska) that have had success against MSU in this 4 year run have had the QB/WR combo to attack MSU through the air, or at least threaten them to keep MSU from fully attacking the run. Think Notre Dame, Indiana, Wisconsin with Wilson, Georgia in a bowl game, Alabama in a bowl game. MSU has a great defense. They've also been lucky that the Big Ten has been brutally bad in QB and WR play these last few years.
|27 weeks 1 day ago||Had their way, but had to||
Had their way, but had to recover an Oregon onside kick with 2 minutes left to secure the win. Stanford's system leaves them susceptible to close games, and close games can go the other way. There's a reason why Stanford's system is not en vogue. They typically get nothing easy unless they're clearly physically superior.
|27 weeks 1 day ago||Yeah, Cook was up and down||
Yeah, Cook was up and down all season long. To his credit, he (and his receivers for that matter) played his best in the two biggest games of the year. But if bad Cook had shown up in either of the last two games they wouldn't have been Rose Bowl champs.
|27 weeks 1 day ago||I hear you, but it was like||
I hear you, but it was like Stanford was just completely ignorant about what MSU does. MSU is super prepared and gamble like hell that they know what's coming. Stanford either didn't realize this or thought that after taking a few shots in the first quarter it wouldn't matter and they could just inflict their will on MSU. Either way, it was a miscalculation that they were unwilling or unable to correct even during the 2-minute drill. A huge coaching failure.
The game also exemplified my problem with Stanford all season long. Purposefully running a sytem that gains 4 yards a shot leaves little room for error. It's why they lost twice in the regular season. It's why MSU was able to survive the first quarter haymakers and come back and win. Gaffney is a nice running back who doesn't lose yards, but he doesn't hit home runs either. He should have had about half his carries this game. Even though Hogan isn't great, they shoulc have continued to take shots downfield.
|27 weeks 1 day ago||The no Texas connections||
The no Texas connections would seem especially relevant with Sumlin and Briles making rapid inroads with in-state recruiting.
|27 weeks 2 days ago||Well Pitt and UNC also both||
Well Pitt and UNC also both won. I think the ACC had a bunch of mediocre-to-bad teams this year. Some of them have won bowl games. Some have looked bad. I don't think it says much about FSU since, as it was pointed out above, FSU pantsed everyone they played.
|27 weeks 2 days ago||He's implemented faster||
He's implemented faster because I think Arizona was already using at least some spread concepts under Stoops. It wasn't the complete sea change that he had to undertake at WVU and UM.
|27 weeks 2 days ago||GT played Ole Miss tough and||
GT played Ole Miss tough and Syracuse beat Minnesota. It's not like the entire ACC has been a dumpster fire this bowl season.
|27 weeks 2 days ago||In all seriousness, I think||
In all seriousness, I think Narduzzi would want the Louisville job and might be a serious candidate (sort of similar resume to Strong). So maybe you should just stick to #Strong4TexasThenNarduzzi4Louisville
|27 weeks 2 days ago||Yeah, but I still think he's||
Yeah, but I still think he's staying at FSU. He has that program at near-Alabama levels in terms of simply reloading (without the benefit of oversigning) and has Winston for at least one more year. Now is a bad time to take another job. Three or four years from now if the Texas hire doesn't turn things around, he might be willing to take a look.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||No offense, but isn't your||
No offense, but isn't your opinion meaningless? If Kelly's years in Michigan make him feel like a Michigander and more inclined to take the Lions job, it doesn't matter whether you, or anyone really, considers him a true Michigander.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||If you've lived your entire||
If you've lived your entire life in Michigan you may not be the best judge of what someone who has lived significant portions of his life in different parts of the country considers himself to be.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||I think your second paragraph||
I think your second paragraph is the key point. I'm not sure what a coach is supposed to say in these circumstances. Also, without being there, I'm not sure we can say he lied. The reports I heard had him saying something along the lines of "that's not true" when speaking on reports that him to the Texans was essentially a done deal on Saturday. I wouldn't be surprised if if he was vaguely honest with the recruits.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||I'm not really the one with||
I'm not really the one with an argument here. All I said was your statement that Stanford didn't have gobs of talent was silly. And it was. You trying to somehow neuter that statement with things like "look at the rivals rankings" and "NFL are looking for different things" just makes it sillier. You felt it was relevant to your point that Stanford was successful without lots of talent. You were supporting your argument with something that was not true. That was my only point
I agree with your overall point that good coaches can coach good talent to success in any system. You're not stepping out on a limb with that statement. What I happen to believe, though you probably disagree, is that its harder to achieve success in your prototypical pro-style systems with lesser talent. Pro-style systems seem much more dependent on winning individual battles and having talent at key positions such as QB. However, that shouldn't really matter at a school like Michigan that should never have lesser talent.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||Every coach is going to miss||
Every coach is going to miss on at least a couple guys a year.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||You said they didn't have||
You said they didn't have gobs of talent and ran a pro-style system well. Pretty clearly the NFL thought they did have lots of talent, with those teams producing 5 first day NFL draft picks and a handful of second day NFL draft picks. That's talent, even if Rivals didn't recognize it. To me it's immaterial if they were recruited as a dominant group. They had a bunch of guys that came in and performed like the same 5-star types that Alabama recruits. It's no surprise that with less of that NFL talent (especially at QB) they've taken a step backwards the last couple years offensively.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||My memory of the UT game is||
My memory of the UT game is obviously a little fuzzy at this point, and I do think they may have quit at the end, but I seem to recall UT's defensive line just absolutely dominating and just generally being a much better team overall. If you don't play your best and emotionally pack it in, it's a little easier to take after you start to get your ass kicked by an excellent team, rather than not even showing up and getting your ass kicked by a mediocre outfit like KSU.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||Yeah, the idea that those||
Yeah, the idea that those Stanford teams weren't talented is pretty silly.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||I think there is a very, very||
I think there is a very, very small portion of people here that think Borges is being replaced. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that people think he'll be fired. Many think he should be fired, but doubt it happens.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||I would consider GT and for||
I would consider GT and for that matter, Stanford, to be contrarian schemes. They work because defenses prep for other offensive systems 95% of the time and look for defensive personnel to stop offensive schemes they see week-in and week-out. If a large enough group of teams followed GT or Stanford's lead, the uniqueness factor would be lost and the schemes would become less effective.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||It does seem that this type||
It does seem that this type of performance says more about the coaching than the talent level. I can only think of one other Michigan bowl performance where we looked so lackadaisical and lethargic (Miss. St. Gator Bowl) and that was when the team was obvioulsy playing out the string on a doomed coaching staff. There have been other bowl beat downs such as Tennessee in the Citrus Bowl and Washington in the Rose Bowl, but my memory is that those were cases of getting beaten by better teams playing well, not a lack of effort.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||I think he's complaining||
I think he's complaining about correctly deciding that we couldn't run the ball, as in that we would have been incapable of running had we attempted to do so. Not that we didn't run. All in all, Brian takes a pretty lenient approach to Borges in this game.
|27 weeks 3 days ago||Didn't Cleveland get a new GM||
Didn't Cleveland get a new GM last offseason? I think this is merely a case of the GM wanting his own guy as head coach.
|27 weeks 4 days ago||Thing is, he did. Quote:||
Thing is, he did. Quote: "[Hoke's] staff wasn't good enough. [Hoke's] players weren't good enough. [Hoke] wasn't good enough."
Your interpretation of the columnists point is no more complete than the OP's.
|28 weeks 10 hours ago||I think a lot of people||
I think a lot of people suggested that very thing at the time. Don't need conformation today that Gardner was playing through injury by the end of that game.
|29 weeks 7 hours ago||I'm glad I'm not the only one||
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks the reports of Gardner's injury as a "turf-toe" smell a little fishy.
|29 weeks 8 hours ago||I don't know if I'd call this||
I don't know if I'd call this a new low. It still has Assembly Hall attached, and that'll still be its common name. I think the corporate renaming of stadiums is worse. And it isn't as low as say, renaming Kinnick after a big donor. I mean, the name itself isn't special. It's not even unique.
|29 weeks 13 hours ago||But isn't a big part of that||
But isn't a big part of that their non-conference rivalriy with FSU and to a smaller extent, with Miami? It's not that they don't play road games, it's that those road games are limited by set non-conference rivalries, just as ours have been limited due to the ND series.
You may be right that Florida wasn't the right team to pull off a home and home with, but I think most fans should prefer a home and home with another high quality opponent rather than shipping the one interesting non-conference home game off to Dallas.
Edit: nevermind, read jamiemac below. If it's this or a home game payoff to a MAC opponent, this is certainly better. Still don't like these games as a general concept, though.
|29 weeks 13 hours ago||This wasn't clear at all in||
This wasn't clear at all in my post, but I was referring to all officiating (football, baseball, basketball, hockey, etc.) There has been very little inroads for women officials in any sport, even those that women have been playing for a long time.
Your argument makes some sense with respect to football, though I would question just how much high school football experience would help an official in an NFL game. And I think there are far more women with background knowledge and familiarity with football than you or the commenter above you acknowledge.
|29 weeks 13 hours ago||Hard to believe it's taken||
Hard to believe it's taken this long for women to make inroads into officiating. Officials aren't typically physical specimens (ed hochuli's guns, notwithstanding). There's nothing masculine about keen observation skills and the ability to make quick accurate decisions. A woman can be every bit as competent or incomptent as a male official.
|29 weeks 14 hours ago||Unless Wilton Speight or a||
Unless Wilton Speight or a 2015 signee beats Morris out for the starting job by 2016 (the latter is obviously highly unlikely). 2017 is a long way off to be worried that we might be breaking in a new QB.
|29 weeks 1 day ago||I don't think that's his||
I don't think that's his position. I think his position is that we're not "fine" at WR, not that Campbell is a proven commodity. I think it's a more than fair statement. We shouldn't stop looking for the next stud WR recruit because we have a bunch of guys on the roster that haven't proven anything.
I'm sure MSU fans convinced themselves they were fine entering the 2012 season at WR with a bunch of guys who had been in the program plus Burbridge and Arnett, yet they've had two years of extremely underwhelming WR performance.
|29 weeks 1 day ago||We're a ways away from 2010.||
We're a ways away from 2010. Hoke's job status has never seriously been questioned, while Rodriguez was under fire from both within the Michigan community and from outsiders almost from the start of his tenure. Add in the Free Press hit piece and it was just a toxic recruiting environment in 2010. Even if we struggle again next year and Hoke gets kicked to the curb, the program will be in a lot better shape for the next guy.
|29 weeks 2 days ago||The small class would create||
The small class would create room for 2015 if we had more than 25 scholarships available to get to 85. Otherwise, it's sort of meaningless. I guess you should always backdate the maximum number you can, just in case you find yourself in an unanticipated attrition related jam. But well run programs generally shouldn't need more than 25 scholarships in a year to get to 85 on the roster.
|29 weeks 2 days ago||You know what also fails more||
You know what also fails more often than not? Hiring NFL coaches. I'd have to search for it, but plenty of people have looked into it and found that former college coaches perform at the same levels as NFL coaches. You notice college coach failures more because of confirmation bias and because a college coach is more likely to be hired into a bad situation.
|29 weeks 3 days ago||Unfortunately, Michigan State||
Unfortunately, Michigan State is making more news than we are these days...
|29 weeks 4 days ago||Two teams playing out the||
Two teams playing out the string. I'm sure both teams' players appreciated the do or die situation rather than being forced to play an overtime.
|29 weeks 4 days ago||Yeah, I think most QBs on NFL||
Yeah, I think most QBs on NFL rosters would have put up numbers at least as good given 45 attempts against Atlanta.
And when you consider that 17 of Atlanta's points came off Cousnis turnovers...
|29 weeks 6 days ago||Exactly. At least three of||
Exactly. At least three of the these transfers makes absolute sense: A freshman QB who just saw another freshman QB get significant playing time, a fifth year lineman who wants to start if he's going to continue the grind of football, a third string TE who has two receptions in two seasons. Then you have a RS-Fr. lineman, a RS-Fr. fullback and a true FR lineman, the latter who seems like a project at best. I'd have to know the Florida roster better than I do to know how the latter departures would affect Florida, but I sure don't see the "Muschamp is horrible" storyline being furthered by this story. Sure, 23% of his recruits no longer being on the team isn't great, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonably high percentage.
|30 weeks 11 hours ago||I think they get compensation||
I think they get compensation that your average joe would consider to be great pay, but yes, he's almost certainly making less now that he was as CEO.
|30 weeks 12 hours ago||It's only expensive if you're||
It's only expensive if you're at the same time building palaces for your football and basketball programs.
|30 weeks 12 hours ago||As I said right above your||
As I said right above your post, there's a difference between the pure economic definition of worth and the concept of what people mean when they're discussing what someone or something is worth.
Someone may be willing to spend $5,000 on a purse made from $200 in materials for reasons solely related to status and such. That doesn't mean the rational people who look at the bag and say, that's crazy, there's no way it's worth that much are "wrong."
Edit: I should add this to say that I'm not sure Saban isn't "worth" the money even in the subjective sense. As you point out, he undoubtedly brings in more money than his pay check.
|30 weeks 12 hours ago||There's a difference between||
There's a difference between pure economic worth, which you're right, is a simple concept, and the more subjective concept of people saying "is it really worth it?" Those that say anyone is "worth" their salary because someone is willing to pay that much is being simplistic. They're ignoring subjective context in favor of a rigid definition. Life is more than rigid definitions.
|30 weeks 12 hours ago||Do you think he would have||
Do you think he would have balked at being hired if he was making $500K less? I certainly don't. I think he was given a contract that has him currently the 11th highest paid coach in the country because Michigan thinks its coach should be one the top 15 highest paid coaches. While I think that sentiment is fine, it's hard to argue that Brady Hoke's resume then, or now, would have him in the top 15 of current or potential head coaches. We paid him based on the position he was taking, not his resume. Which was the OP's point.
I don't think its a real insult to Hoke to say that we paid him a salary based on what we are hoping he becomes. We're certainly not the only ones to do this.
|30 weeks 13 hours ago||That's a little simplistic,||
That's a little simplistic, no? Lots of people pay more for a service than they think it's worth. They do this for many reasons. The Alabama AD may be thinking, there's no way in hell Nick Saban is worth this much money, but I'll be damned if I'm the guy blamed for letting him walk away. The Mariners front office might think there's no way in hell Cano is worth the $240M they're paying him but may have decided they had to make a splash in free agency, even if that meant greatly overpaying.
What one is willing to pay does not always equate to worth. This is true in everyday life when you say countless times "I can't believe I just payed that much for this." It's also true at these levels in sports when you may knowingly overpay and harm your own financial interests for vague reasons that may or may not make sense.
|30 weeks 13 hours ago||Unfortunately, Brady Hoke||
Unfortunately, Brady Hoke coulc be used as exhibit A. I sure hope at some point he's worth his salary, but he wasn't when he was hired, and probably isn't now.
|30 weeks 1 day ago||I meant more from the||
I meant more from the opposite perspective. If you're AD at a big time school, do you want a guy who could be looking at retirement in 5 years? You do for a guy like Saban who could turn your program into a beheamoth in 5 years when he leaves it for the next guy, but Dantonio isn't remotely the same type of slam dunk.
|30 weeks 1 day ago||I think this is a good||
I think this is a good possibility. It seems to me that Narduzzi was rumored to be connected to the UConn job for too long for it to fall apart over assistnat pay. He either got cold feet (reasonable) or has reason to believe a better opportunity will be available.
On the other hand, isn't Dantonio a little long in the tooth for a big time coaching job?
|30 weeks 1 day ago||But then you look at Bama's||
But then you look at Bama's pre-Saban coaching hires, and Dantonio seems just fine:
Mike Shula - career assistant
Mike Price - Longtime Washington State head coach. Also, LOL.
Dennis Franchione - TCU head coach
Mike DuBose - long time DL coach at Alabama.
|30 weeks 3 days ago||I don't know... the two bowls||
I don't know... the two bowls are a wash, and I'd say last year's game we had a big advantage in that South Carolina had no idea what offense to expect with Denard's injury status being closely guarded. We haven't looked great after bye weeks, as others have noted.
|30 weeks 3 days ago||Because most people can look||
Because most people can look at a schedule and realize that despite losing "most of their games by double digits," they didn't get beat by more than 10 points in any game. Most people can also look and see that they only had one win with a margin of victory under 20 points.
|30 weeks 3 days ago||And, conversely, the Florida||
And, conversely, the Florida bowls would rather select fan bases from the eastern half of the U.S. and those to whom a little Florida sun sounds great come January 1st.
Did the Pac 10 also have a Rose Bowl only policy for a while? That and the relative lack of FBS schools west of the rockes would explain why there aren't good secondary bowl games in the Pac 12's home turf.
|30 weeks 3 days ago||I think you're undervaluing||
I think you're undervaluing KSU, losing sight of Clemson's passing offense vs. Ohio State's back 7 being a huge mismatch and seemingly forgotten Bad Conor Cook's performance against Minnesota. With Cook facing far and away the best defense he's seen all season in Stanford, I'm not sure anyone can count on much out of the MSU offense.
As I said in my initial post, I see one big favorite, one big underdog, and the rest somewhere in between. I can come up with reasons for Big Ten optimism in each game, but also reasons for dread.
I had read your last line as national title picture, not Big Ten. I disagree though that Ohio and MSU will get marginally better. I expect them to be at least marginally worse. I honestly haven't considered Wisconsin's depth chart, so not sure what to expect from them next year. As for us? Who knows. Tougher schedule, losing a lot on offense. Think we're still a year away from really being competitive.
|30 weeks 4 days ago||That would make this an||
That would make this an infinitely more interesting game.
|30 weeks 4 days ago||Agree on Minnesota and maybe||
Agree on Minnesota and maybe Wisconsin (though, the public will surely feely differently), Michigan is also mediocre and Clemson will also score easily on Ohio State. I think Michigan State can win that one, it's a game where both teams are highly dependant on which version of their QB shows up. No idea on Nebraska, don't really know if either team gets any of their injured players back, but Georgia has seemed to handle it better even when losing. I'm hoping for at least 3-4.
I think your thoughts on next year are wildly optimistic.
|30 weeks 4 days ago||I wonder if any coach to have||
I wonder if any coach to have two FBS coaching stints has produced a worse record than Stan Parrish?
|30 weeks 4 days ago||Really don't know where||
Really don't know where you're coming from on this one. They lost to three top-tenish teams, a desperate Texas team and the most dominant FCS team over the last three years. There isn't a loss like Penn State or Iowa on the schedule and nothing as bad as our near disasters against Akron and UConn.
I think this is a very winnable game, but nobody should be expecting a cake walk.
|30 weeks 4 days ago||Very much agree, though you||
Very much agree, though you can't really blame the Sugar Bowl committe for taking the closer, bigger program. Sets up a true blue blooded battle that should sell well.
|30 weeks 4 days ago||I guess it's a fair Big Ten||
I guess it's a fair Big Ten schedule. One big favorite (Minnesota), one big underdog (Iowa) with the rest likely to be somewhere between slight favorite and slight underdog. The rest are all winnable, even if I'm not sure I like any of the matchups for the Big Ten team.
|30 weeks 6 days ago||Yeah, he just doesn't seem||
Yeah, he just doesn't seem like your typical coach where ambitions to be at the best schools with the most money is the driving force in his decision.
Washington makes sense for a guy like Chris Petersen. He's not stepping into a huge pressure cooker in a part of the country he doesn't know. Rather, he's upgrading to a football school in the same region of the country where he'll be utilizing the recruiting connections he's built up for his entire coaching career. I very much see the draw.
|31 weeks 6 hours ago||I think he means a different||
I think he means a different movie, perhaps simply titled "Mandela." I've seen commercials for it recently. Not sure when or if it came out yet.
|31 weeks 7 hours ago||I hear what you're saying,||
I hear what you're saying, especially with respect to last year's Mizzou record not necesserily being reflective of the type of team they were. But at some point, as the saying goes, you are what the record says you are. If Mizzou wins Saturday, it'll be its first conference championship since 1969. I don't care how "on the rise" your program is, if the SEC was as tough as the south wants us to believe, Mizzou wouldn't have a shot at its first championship in 44 years in its second season in the SEC. Similarly, A&M wouldn't break through its decade+ streak of mediocrity its first year in the SEC.
Both teams may have been poised for success in the Big 12, but that is merely support for the point that teams that are successful in other conferences would probably be successful if transplanted into the SEC.
|31 weeks 8 hours ago||I would say that Auburn and||
I would say that Auburn and Missouri are ranked as high as they are, as compared to say Oklahoma St., because teams like Georgia, A&M, and Florida were criminally overrated to start the season. Auburn was only #4 before the Alabama game on the strength of wins over A&M and a miracle over Georgia. Missouri only jumped in the rankings after beating Georgia and the rotting corpse of Florida.
Everyone ignores the fact that A&M didn't beat anyone all season; Georgia lost to Clemson at full strength, lost to Vandy while beat up, and was taken to double OT by a mediocre Georgia Tech team two weeks after losing to Auburn; and Florida lost to Miami at full strength and then lost to Vandy and Georgia Southern.
It would be one thing if Auburn and Missouri laid down the path of destruction Florida State did in their wins, but that was far from the case. They simply rose so fast because an SEC win was valued more than any other win by pollsters.
|31 weeks 8 hours ago||I said they can be, didn't||
I said they can be, didn't say they are every year. Something that is pretty easily shown from years of Big Ten-SEC equality in bowls like the Citrus and the Gator. I certainly wouldn't try and make any positive comparisons between the Big Ten and damn near any conference this year. Thuogh I expect Wisconsin to hold their own against an SEC opponent in the Capital One bowl this year. But would I perhaps pick UCLA, Washington or USC in a matchup with South Carolina this year? The same South Carolina that lost to Tennessee? Yeah, I think I would.
And, for the record, I'd still list Alabama as the SEC's best team.
|31 weeks 9 hours ago||But they clearly haven't done||
But they clearly haven't done worse than they did in the Big 12
2011 A&M T-6th overall, 4-5 conference record
2010 A&M T-1st in their division, 6-2 conference record
2009 A&M 5th in their division, 3-5 conference record
2008 A&M T-5th in their division, 2-6 conference record
2011 Missouri 5th in their division, 5-4 conference record
2010 Missouri T-1st in their division, 6-2 conference record
2009 Missouri T-2nd in their division, 4-4 conference record
2008 Missouri T-1st in their division, 5-3 conference record
If you go back further, of course, you get the one year Missouri sniffed a conference championship in 2007 and then a bunch of years where they were .500 or worse in conference. A&M is pretty damn similar until you get back into the 90's.
At worst you can say is that two middling Big 12 programs entered the SEC and did no worse. According to SEC partisans, they should have been creamed week in and week out for all eternity based on the improved competition. That hasn't happened.
|31 weeks 9 hours ago||I think they have the most||
I think they have the most programs capable of producing an elite team in any given year, but their 3rd best team on down can be as bad as the 3rd best team on down in any other conference. What always bothers me about the SEC homers is their refusal to accept that the 5th or 6th best team in the conference is probably not a top-10 or top-15 squad.
|31 weeks 13 hours ago||As well as pretty much every||
As well as pretty much every other #1 before Braylon.