things go poorly
Emgo Amadeo Dela Soulle
- Member for
- 2 years 25 weeks
|2 years 19 weeks ago||Wichigan||
Nice of Burrows to acknowledge all the Ws they're going to put up against him.
|2 years 19 weeks ago||Well...||
A) That's not true for GR3 and THJ's highlights. Given their bloodlines and age, there was very little worry about their talent for Michigan. Especially GR3. While he wasn't the top 20-50 player he became right away everyone was aware that he had the potential, like his dad, to be a late bloomer.
B) Novak and Douglass were recruited in a very different context. Beilein was facing a transition and needed to bring in reliable talent that fit his system. Though the occassional exception may occur (e.g., Albrecht for positional need), Beilein does not need to take 2-star types anymore.
I'm not disputing that Beilein has a good eye for talent and has, generally, earned a good deal of our trust. But he's also recruited Brundige and Christian and McLimans. It just bothers me when people act like questioning any of Beilein's decisions is unacceptable.
The same type of logic was applied to Joe Dumars, who has presided over nearly a decade of unrelenting decline. By no means am I saying Beilein is headed in that direction (I think he's doing a FANTASTIC job.). I just don't like the attitude.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Can't make that argument||
when LSU can play in the Superdome. It'd be silly to claim the neutral-site is actually going to be neutral and then put all the potential locations in the south.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Adding 10-20K||
additional out-of-town fans (on top of normal home games) can be difficult for many college towns to handle. It's not just about the airport, but car-rentals, hotels, restaurants,etc. This is much less of an issue if you're driving into town for the day (like Toronto fans can.)
Ann Arbor is well poised to handle it, with Detroit as it's neighbor. Some of the smaller and more remote college towns would legitimately struggle.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||The BCS was planned||
with the best-case scenario in mind, without much consideration for 'unlikely' worst-case scenarios like mid-majors becoming obvious candiates, or lackluster intra-conference rematches would occur, or 3-clear-cut teams, or....
Look, I agree that the Bowls are driving the decison-making, but you can't just argue about how great the best-case scenarios would look, because the BCS can make equivalently valid arguments.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||That's the problem||
Even if you don't have 'a legitimate shot' at the playoff, you still have to make plans for it. Teams that we'd all agree 'don't have a legitimate shot' regularly get there (or close to it).Oregon, TCU, Stanford, Boise, Utah and Missouri are teams that have finished in the top 4 of polls in the last few years that might have been put into the 'no shot' category. Baylor, Rutgers, UConn, Fresno State, Houston, Louisville, Miami (NTM), Kansas State have all had years where they've come close.
Any of these schools COULD deal with the situation and would probably be happy to do so, but there could also be many senarios that create problems, complaints, and end up being more embarrasing and less successful than the stupid Bama-LSU rematch we had this year.
Yes, Oregon can host USC without a problem, but can UConn host USC? Can Wazzu host 'Bama? If New Mexico State turns into the next Boise or Miami...is Las Cruces going to be capable of hosting Ohio State fans?
I think YES - they can. You deal with the problems because it's far more interesting to watch - TV rankings will be better than they would be for a generic stadium experience and the college football brand will be better overall as a result. But...that doesn't mean the problems are worth dismissing entirely just because they look unlikely at this moment.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Toronto is driving distance||
Austin is not
|2 years 20 weeks ago||The BCS was planned this way||
I'd rather learn from that mistake.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||This same argument||
Would have been used a few years ago against Oregon, Boise State, TCU. A couple decades ago it would have been Miami. The instances of teams you don't expect to do it making the pre-bowl top 4 are not at all uncommon.
The main problem with the BCS is it there is no contingency plan for when it doesn't work out the way you hope it will. Yet that happens all the time and people complain about how badly the system is designed -- the same approach is being taken for home-game playoffs.
I agree the relationship with bowls is the REAL issue here, but that doesn't mean some of their public rationale is entirely devoid of reason. It is simply much EASIER and LESS RISKY to go with the established neutral-site format. Administrators, decision-makers, and people of all kinds like easy and risk-free. It's easy for us to say, as fans, 'no problem', but if it's your ass on the line you might not be so flippant and dismissive.
Also, university presidents and athletic department heads don't necessarily want to go through the headache of planning an event they're very unlikely to have to execute.
What's good for powers like Michigan and Alabama isn't necessarily good for other schools. Unless you want to split off the powers, you have to deal with the limitations and concerns of the have-nots.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Great photo!||
at the top of the post
|2 years 20 weeks ago||It's a problem that can be addressed||
but it does raise some legitimate challenges.
The demands for a FCS playoff game, and NCAA baseball attendance are not comparable to BCS-level football. Basketball is brought up because it is the only reasonable comparison at the amateur level. The NFL has around 30 teams, a dozen of which participate in the playoffs. The NCAA would have 4 out of 100 or so.
Green Bay is prepared for the possibility of a playoff game every season. A city like Pullman or Corvallis is not only much smaller than Green Bay (metro population of about 300K) but is FAR less likely to reap benefits from hosting a playoff game. They will be less inclined to put much effort into planning something that may happen once a century. On the other side of it, a school like Cinncinati may not be able to reserve their nearby NFL stadium, which can host other events.
The Pac-12 championship is a great example for your case. But it is still is a 'regional' game that won't be quite the same challenge as a national semi-final. The reason the Pac10 did this is geographic. There are few workable neutral-site options that didn't risk very empty stadiums because the Pac12 footprint is so widespread -- it's expensive to book a flight last minute, but not to drive somewhere for a weekend.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Not about revenue maximization at all||
OK, blaming it on the 'NCAA' as a whole is unfair, but it's better than blaming it on 'The BCS'.
My point is that the bowls esssentialy act as lobbyists to influence the system to their favor. It's not a systemic revenue maximization at all, but favor is curried on the interests of key decision-makers.
Even if the semi-final game isn't called "The Orange Bowl', if it's held in the same city and stadium, a lot of the same parties will be playing the same roles.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||True||
But with a dramatically increased ticket price and a high-profile game, you will have a lot more out-of-area fans. Ann Arbor can probably handle it, weather permitting. Other places will have a much harder time dealing with, say, 10-20K additional out-of-towners (beyond a normal game day) dropping in.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||I agree||
but the counter-argument there is ... if your worst-case scenario is a half-full stadium, your risk is pretty low. They can always reduce the ticket costs. (And anyway, the school's athletic departments are going to be on the hook for much of them via guarantees - when their jubilant fans will be in no mood to care about costs anyway.)
Compare this to a worst-case scenario for the home-game scenario: national media and SEC fans overrunning an ill-prepared, remote, snowed-over, college town like Pullman, WA.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||valid point||
These kind of concerns are easy to dismiss because they either haven't happened yet or are infrequent. Ironically, this is the same sort of mentality (looking backwards and not anticipating problems) that gets the BCS killed publically.
These issues may be small, unlikely, or easy to overcome, but when the many small issues are totalled up and when some of them become not-so-easy-as-we-thought, it creates a bad situation for the people responsible for running this thing.
Pointing to the best case scenarios goes for both sides of the debate and proves very little. Pointing to the worst case scenario isn't much better, but is probably more worth discussing from a planning perspective.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||They live outside Ann Arbor||
but not far away from it. Most are driving in. With a post-season game that could be triple the price, you'll have far more out of region people and non-alumni, who won't be comfortable nor have the desire to rent cars and drive in from a neighboring city.
The bigger issue is that Ann Arbor (which hosts large-scale national-level events regularly and is located 20 minutes from a major international airport) is far better equipped to handle this than many other schools.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||not just that...||
but hotels and restaurants. Most college campuses are used to 80-90% of attendees driving in from the surrounding region and tailgating, not flying in, staying in hotels, taking taxis, and eating at restaurant.
Cinncinnati is actually a legitimate city - but small college-towns like Storrs, Corvallis, Charlotsville, Champaign, etc. are going to struggle with providing for a national-scale event on short notice.
It's something that can be overcome, but a legitimate concern.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||The BCS is an event not an entity||
There are commitees that run the thing, made up primarily of University presidents, athletic directors and conference commisionners. So yes, it is distinct from the NCAA, but it seems like some of the same people make decisions on these matters.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||That is a completely pragmatic decision||
You don't play baseball in bad weather and the weather in the north is far less reliable. It's not about 50 degrees. Playing in the north dramatically increase the liklihood of cancelling the event. I don't know how you can complain about this reality. But yeah, it is unpleasant too. There's just no reason for the southern/western schools to do it.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||That is not the reason||
The reason is that the NCAA will get a significant kick-back (in one form another) from neutral-site bowl games. In the 'home-game' scenario the athletic departments will get most (or all) of the revenues. The NCAA has clearly demonstrated that, despite it's stated purposes, it will sometimes aims to generate revenue for the organization itself, rather than do what is best for individual schools.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||what doesn't make sense about it?||
If there is a Pac12 school willing to do a one-off road game, it wouldn't preclude another Pac12 school from scheduling a future home-and-home...or vice versa.
|2 years 20 weeks ago||Oregon State||
does it. (e.g. trips to PSU and Wisc)
The teams with smaller stadiums and/or willingness to gain in profile will do it.
I agree with Purple Stuff - we can't rule out a single game visit. Until you know that information, it could be anyone from the 'haves' like USC, UCLA, ASU to the 'have nots' like WSU and OSU.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||I second this||
this would be an excellent approach to recruiting rankings. The number of recruits is function of team need, not class quality.
In a couple years (if everything goes well) Michigan is going to be bringing in classes of 15-20 high-quality recruits, and it's going to annoy me when people rank 28-person classes of inferior quality above them.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||Good job Ace!||
Smart move to adjust the UR players to 2-star. Reverting to 1-star in the final rankings makes perfect sense, but right now, with so many players who just haven't been looked at yet by the services, it did not. Good of you to acknowledge the feedback and make the change.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||Not remotely the same||
It's a nice matchup, but it's not a bowl. Bowls are structured as a reward at the culmination of the season, and they're a break from Winter weather.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||I'm surprised people care this much.||
I'd rather they were there than not, but it's a huge expense to transport, house, and feed such a large group. It seems like an expensive luxury.
This isn't a bowl game, it's just a really far away non-conference game. Dallas that time of year is not much fun to visit. Brandon isn't robbing these kids of a significant experience. As for atmosphere, this is a generic giant stadium where the MMB's charms are going to be underappreciated anyway. If there is a choice between this game and a conference road game, I'd choose the conference game without question.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||I didn't say Kelly recruited||
I didn't say Kelly recruited Dixon, nor did I say Thomas reminded me of Denard. I pointed out Denard had good passing stats in Rodriguez's spread. The similarity is that they all played in systems that produced opportunities for low-skill passers to produce impressive stats.
Before Kelly, Dixon threw 12 TDs and 14 INTs. With Kelly, he threw 20 TDs and 4 INTs. His avg went up from 6.7 to 8.4. That should give you a ballpark estimate of the degree to which Kelly's system can inflate passing statistics.
Thomas is a better runner than a passer. Thomas is used more often as a passer. These are not mutually exclusive.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||agree||
He's not a special player period, but he's an above-average runner and a below-average passer, IMO.
I'm not disputing his productivity, I'm arguing it's a result of the system, not his skills. His backup was a freshman who did just as well, if not better, statistically.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||Denard is asked to do different things||
My point was not Darron=Denard, it was that good passing stats don't necessarily mean good passing skills.
It's fine that you don't want to believe me about Thomas, but you might read some other objective analysis rather than blindly pointing to stats.
As the article says, Thomas is a good 'game-manager'. He makes smart decisions. It helps that he's been in the same system for 4 years, under the same coach. Thomas had 2 years on the bench to watch and learn. Comparing him to a very raw sophomore Denard or a junior Denard facing a coaching change, isn't especially insightful.
I live in Oregon. I'm not a fan, but I watch a lot of Ducks football. Thomas is not a good passer, he's just in a really good system that lets him make easy throws. He has some passing skills, but they are unexceptional. He IS a legitimate run threat, above-average certainly, but not nearly on the same level as Denard or even Dixon, and certainly doesn't compare to De'Anthony Thomas and LeMichael James caliber runners.
|2 years 21 weeks ago||Good to know||
It's not just Michigan fans who can spin almost anything into a positive.
The importance of that Dec-Jan timeframe for recruiting seems to be diminishing a bit with all the early commitments. I don't think this is just my Michigan-biased perspective, but it could be. I'll stand corrected if Meyer flips a handful of high profile recruits.