- Member for
- 4 years 24 weeks
- Current value
|3 years 5 weeks ago||Syracuse||
I like Syracuse as a prospective member. They're solid academically and an AAU member, but I don't know if their graduate research is up to par with the rest of the CIC. I think the big thing with Syracuse is potential for greater access to the NYC market. If you added something like Notre Dame with their big national following, and maybe a couple regional universities like Syracuse and UConn, you're probably more likely to generate interest from NYC sports fans. I'm not at all convinced that many people in NYC give a crap about Rutgers, but it sounds like they're usually in the conversation.
Assuming that those additions get you NYC, if you can also add Texas to get you Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio markets, and Maryland to get you the DC/Baltimore markets, the Big Ten would have great access to 7 of the top 11 MSA populations.
Unfortunately, I think you'd have trouble getting Maryland and Texas to jump onboard, Notre Dame is like a flaky 35 year old divorced former prom queen with seven kids who still thinks she's hot, and the other options probably aren't as attractive.
|3 years 5 weeks ago||I'm convinced that we only go with 3 or 5 additions if....||
I'm convinced that we only go with 3 or 5 additions if there's too many great fits for us to turn down a school. So for example, if both Notre Dame and Texas wanted to join, you take a third team because you can't say no to one of those two schools.
Same kind of scenario if you have four teams you don't want to reject, say for example, Notre Dame, Texas (+ A&M to get Texas), and Syracuse all wanted to join the Big Ten, then maybe it makes sense to go to five teams. I'm hoping that the Big Ten wouldn't expand simply for the sake of expansion, and that talk of larger expansion is a sign that Big Ten TV revenues and the CIC is generating a lot of interest from some top notch prospective members.
|3 years 14 weeks ago||We could become a 16 team super conference||
The IG in the Big Ten logo already looks suspiciously like a 16. If the Big Ten ends up shocking the world and adding five teams, I expect a History Channel special showing the hidden 16 in the Big Ten logo. Perhaps also a showing of links to Masons, the Big Ten Conference, and new Universities, maybe also the Knights Templar.
|3 years 18 weeks ago||#10||
There was a pretty good QB that wore #10 for Michigan.
|3 years 18 weeks ago||If we added 3 teams, it's because we can't say no to at least 2||
If we added three teams, it's because we can't say no to at least two prospective members.
I think you got one of those in Maryland. Maryland is a top-notch research institution and I would bet that the CIC would enjoy having a member in the DC area. They're a mediocre to bad football team, but otherwise they have very good athletics. They bring a very nice local market in DC/Baltimore, but just an average national following. The problem with Maryland is that their administration would face resistance to leaving the ACC from many fans and alum. We probably can't say no to them, but we probably wouldn't have a chance anyway.
The other school we couldn't turn down, I'd say Texas. Yeah, the geography sucks, but everything else is top notch. Huge local market (entire state of Texas) plus a strong national following, top-notch athletics across the board, top-notch academics, big-time research institute. Like Maryland, they probably wouldn't give us a chance to reject them anyway.
|3 years 18 weeks ago||iTunes||
FYI, the WTKA podcasts are loading to iTunes again!
|3 years 19 weeks ago||Dews could help with LB's||
If we wanted to hire Heater or Corwin to help Gibson coach the secondary, we could move Dews over to defense to help Greg coach the LB's. Dews was a college TE but coached LB's at UNLV.
That would be less viable if MaGee goes to South Fla and takes another offensive guy or two with him, but with Rich Rod focusing almost 100% on offense, I wouldn't mind having an imbalance in the assistant coaching staff towards the defense.
|3 years 20 weeks ago||Oakley Icon 2.0||
I got the Oakley Icon 2.0 backpack on sale for about $50 from steepandcheap.com which is a clearance website for backcountry.com. It's held up to about 2.5 years of lugging my law books and laptop around. The biggest flaw for me, both of the zipper handles for the main compartment broke so I had to borrow parachute ties from another backpack.
|3 years 21 weeks ago||the 97 defense||
They ran a sort of hybrid defense that leaned a little more towards 4-3 than 3-4. The rush linebacker was the weakside OLB, but James Hall was really more of a smallish DE than a a true 3-4 OLB or a Quick like Roh. Sword played inside with Jones, with a heavy mixture of Ian Gold, especially in passing situations. I think Jones played Will, so he was kind of an ILB but really played more like a 4-3 OLB. In '97, Copenhaven started at OLB with Rob Swett spelling him. But I think you're right in that Jones later moved to that Sam OLB position.
That '97 defense was really just loaded with NFL guys.
|3 years 22 weeks ago||Wasn't even a joke about gay people||
It was a cheesy innuendo joke about two guys holding a sign that says giving and receiving. The truth is, I would have no problem holding a sign like that, but I thought the cheesy joke worked better as a joke about my own insecurity rather than, say, accusing the two gentlemen of being gay.
|3 years 22 weeks ago||I don't have a problem with gay people||
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I would hold a sign that says "receiving" while my buddy is standing next to me, with a s!#t-eating grin, holding a sign that says "giving."
|3 years 22 weeks ago||I doubt 5/16 is seriously in play||
The only way it's considered is if you have a few schools that you just can't turn down. For example, if Texas, Maryland, Notre Dame, Nebraska, and Kansas all want to join, who do you turn away? All of those are unlikely options IMO, but if you have five national schools that would also add five different strong local markets, the Big Ten might consider going to a mega sized conference.
In other words, I think the expansion number is largely dependent on the quality of schools that wish to join. I don't think we'll take 3-5 mediocre schools just to add size to the Big Ten.
|3 years 22 weeks ago||Good idea||
The academically strong schools can be the Big Ten division. The weak schools can be the Toilet Ten division.
|3 years 22 weeks ago||I was kind of joking in another thread when I said this||
But if you start thinking three, why not go five?!
Texas, Syracuse, Maryland, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame gets you Texas, NY, DC/Baltimore, Nashville, and NBC. I don't think the Big Ten would have the balls to even try, and even if they did I don't think it would happen, but all of those are AAU schools (except Notre Dame) with good to excellent academics.
I wonder how big of a carrot the CIC would really be to these other University presidents. The ACC is a top notch academic conference in its own right, but do those schools have the research collaboration of the CIC or are they just a nice collection of schools?
|3 years 23 weeks ago||Chicago is already in the CIC||
They're already a member of the academic Big Ten. We have that association and benefit of collaborative research without having to deal with a potentially crappy athletic department like Northwestern.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||I think people doubt they'd leave the ACC||
They're already an AAU school and a big public research university so I agree that they'd fit in well academically. The biggest advantage IMO would be expanding the Big Ten footprint into DC/Baltimore. I just don't know if they'd leave the ACC which is a pretty good athletic/academic conference in its own right.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||We should add five teams||
Texas, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, and Maryland.
Pluses: opens up huge TV markets in Texas, NY, Nashville, DC/Baltimore. All top notch academic universities, only Notre Dame isn't an AAU member. With Notre Dame on board, Jesus can replace Delaney as Big Ten Commissioner.
Negatives: travel, reality, would never happen
|3 years 23 weeks ago||was just looking at that chart||
I thought I remembered seeing something that had Mike Jones at 2 games played. I can't remember where I read it, but I thought at one point I read an article about the redshirt freshmen. In that article, there was speculation that Mike Jones might get back his redshirt. It's possible that I have completely imagined the possible Mike Jones redshirt. According to your link, I'm obviously WAY off about the number of games Jones played.
|3 years 23 weeks ago||I think he gets a medical RS||
IIRC, he only showed up on the player participation chart for two early games but then stayed on the bench for the rest of the season.
I haven't looked at all of the official depth charts, but Mike Jones was behind Stevie Brown and Floyd Simmons at SLB for the Ohio State game. With Brown graduating, we obviously have a need for a new starting SLB. It will be interesting to see what happens with Jones. He'll have a full season of practice under his belt at SLB, but he's also a candidate to add weight and move inside. If the defense stays the same, Mike Jones at 220+ probably isn't going to be very competitive at SLB unless we're willing to put in a true nickel package or sub in a coverage player at SLB in passing situations.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||ILB depth||
At Mike and Will, I think the young up and comers to watch out for are Isaiah Bell, Cameron Gordon, Kenny Demens, JB Fitzgerald,
Maybe Mike Jones puts on weight and moves inside from SLB, maybe Brandon Herron gets a look inside with Craig Roh locking down Quick.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||I did not know that||
Thanks for passing that on.
A quick look at the roster shows Gordon is listed at 6-2 208. That's probably not ideal size for a Will or Mike in our system, but an off-season of weights might see him get up to 220 without losing speed.
|3 years 24 weeks ago||Cameron Gordon||
Please report to the equipment manager to switch out your reciever's pads for linebacker's pads.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||I think he lands at DT||
I think he would play at DT or maybe even Power DE for us. You gotta think he plays the position that gives him the best shot at the next level, and I think that would be defense. It would be nice to have a Jovorskie Lane type guy at QB/HB/FB for short yardage situations, but he could be an every down type player on defense whereas I think he's probably more limited offensively. Even if he plays defense, we could still use him situationally on offense.
"I will play anything," he said confidently to Scout.com. "I just love to play the game of football. Some teams are wanting me to play defensive end or defensive tackle and others like me at running back or quarterback. I honestly don't know what I like more. I love tackling and blowing people up for sure, but I also like running over people or shaking them when I get the chance. I mostly play quarterback for my team because that's where coach needs me, but when we get up he will let me play some running back. When we need stops on defense I play all over the defensive line. I believe that whatever I play, I know I am going to be good at it, and I know I am going to have fun playing it. So put me wherever. I don't care. I'll do whatever any coach needs me to do."
|3 years 25 weeks ago||On a somewhat related note||
You cannot substitute a DT in at QB on the depth chart in NCAA 2010 for PS2. DT can't go on the depth chart at HB either, but they can sub in at FB. If you wanted the DT to line up as a HB, you could sub in the DT as a FB and select a formation package where the FB lines up at HB. I'm not using names because I wish to avoid cursing our chances with any real prospects who play all of the aforementioned positions.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||On Van Bergen to Power DE||
I agree that we make this move if one of Campbell or Sagesse can establish himself as one of our top four defensive lineman. Either way, I'd like to see Van Bergen add another ten pounds of muscle. I feel much better about him winning his matchup and occupying blockers if he's around 280-285. At 6-5, I think he has a frame to support that kind of weight without sacrificing too much quickness.
Even if Van Bergen moves to DE in the base package, if another end steps up as a rotation player or situational pass rusher, we can slide Van Bergen back over to DT as either a regular part of the rotation or situational pass rush.
|3 years 25 weeks ago||Yoda version||
"Land Big Tex, we must"
|3 years 27 weeks ago||Pernell McPhee||
I think Parnell McPhee is the name of the Juco DE we were in on last year. I remember watching him either sack Tebow or hit him for a loss, wondering what could have been. He wouldn't have supplanted Graham obviously, but I wonder where he would have been relative to Roh.
|3 years 28 weeks ago||I was suggesting the move for next year||
Mouton is no slower than Kovacs or Williams. He could probably lean down to 220 in the off-season if he switched positions. Obviously the ideal situation would be for one of the athletic projects to step up and beat out the safeties we have now, but Mouton. Mouton was burned in coverage on the wheel route because his read was wrong and he didn't even try to cover, not because he lacked the athleticism to chase down the RB. Playing SS in the box on the weak side is going to be much more similar to playing 4-3 WLB, which Mouton did fairly effectively at times last year, than playing ILB in what is basically a 4-2-5.
I'm not saying it would definitely work, but I'd rather see him have an opportunity to succeed next year than rot on the bench at a position where he's proven to be in effective.
|3 years 28 weeks ago||How about Mouton to safety?||
Mouton will probably get another chance at LB his senior year, but if he's clearly behind Fitzgerald next year and none of the other safeties step up, maybe we move him back out to Brown's SLB position or Williams' SS position in the box. Mouton looked pretty decent as a 4-3 WLB towards the end of last year, but he really really sucks as an ILB in this defense. He's pretty athletic, probably the biggest disappointment on D relative to expectations. Williams and Kovacs are both pretty slow, so I don't think we lose athleticism if Mouton moves out and/or back.
Ezeh just doesn't have the read, react, or cover skills to be a LB. He has good size though, so I'm hoping he moves down to the line. He's a decent athlete, and Graham leaves a huge hole at DE. If Sagesse or Campbell look like starters in the fall, I like Van Bergen moving to power DE in base D situations with Ezeh pushing Van Bergen back to DT on passing downs.
|3 years 35 weeks ago||How much is too much?||
When the players start sneaking some sips. We're just fans, unless you believe in the karmic power of obnoxiously pompous fans, there is no such thing as too much kool-aid. That being said, your friend is probably setting himself up for a letdown. I'm just enjoying this season for what it is.