"Northwestern fans can be both heartened and disheartened by the loss to Minnesota just like how nineteenth-century resurrectionists were heartened when they pried a heart from a freshly-buried corpse and then disheartened it when they sold it to a disreputable anatomist."
- Member for
- 4 years 48 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|5 days 4 hours ago||Dan Mullen can't get as many||
Dan Mullen can't get as many of the high "star" guys at Miss St., so he has done a good job of identifying which of the lower rated guys will outperform their ranking. That doesn't mean that if he coached at a big time school he would tell the 5-star kids to take a hike. RichRod still recruited 5 star talents, and sometimes got them. But he was also able to identify guys at certain positions that were either above their ranking or that fir his system well (like Odoms or Dileo). That didn't mean he passed on the legit 5-stars, like Sammy Watkins or Dee Hart.
|5 days 4 hours ago||I do not think that is||
I do not think that is Brian's point. He's saying that true NFL guys (not like Jim Harbaugh, but like Jon Harbaugh) very rarely make good college head coaches.
|5 days 6 hours ago||I can attest to this. This||
I can attest to this. This is the only post you've made that I agree with 100%.
|6 days 55 min ago||You can't count OSU twice.||
You can't count OSU twice. OSU is their best win (which I compared to Stanford). ND's next two would be USC and ASU. Who are MSU's next two? Nebraska and who?
|6 days 4 hours ago||The Big 12 winner, whoever it||
The Big 12 winner, whoever it is, will have played more tough games than the Big 10 winner, so I don't think that extra game will make much of a difference. At that point, 11-1 and 12-1 are functionally the same.
|6 days 4 hours ago||First of all, I don't think||
First of all, I don't think every opinion he has is the opinion of the "suits at ESPN." Secondly, the suits at ESPN aren't the ones picking the teams. Thirdly, I don't think the "suits at ESPN" want two teams from the same conference anyway. They want to draw in fans from all over the country.
|6 days 4 hours ago||I like that idea, and I think||
I like that idea, and I think that's very likely to be the case.
There is too much guessing from year to year how good a given conference is compared to another, but they don't play each other enough to know. So is a 11-2 champ from one league better than a 12-1 champ from another? Who knows? Let all of the P5 champs in and the next 3 best will get in. If you're the second best team in a really good league, you will get in. And if you are in a league where everyone beats up each other but you come out on top, you still get in.
The only problem I can foresee is when there is a conference championship game where one of the team is clearly not worthy but pulls that game out. Like a few years ago when 8-5 Wisconsin beat Nebraska and went to the Rose Bowl. You'd still have to let that team in then.
|6 days 4 hours ago||Changing QBs makes a huge||
Changing QBs makes a huge difference in how an offense runs. They don't have a viable back up. Receivers are only good if the QB can get them the ball and a running back is only good if there is some run/pass balance. If we can stack the box against them, they won't do much.
|6 days 5 hours ago||But ESPN radio shows have||
But ESPN radio shows have very little connection. Most of them are regional, and even the ones that aren't are just expressing the opinions of the particular guys on that show. Just because Mike Greenberg or Colin Cowherd think a second SEC team is deserved, doesn't mean "ESPN" thinks that and just because those guys say it doesn't even mean they believe. A lot of what they say is for the sake of discusssion and ratings are little else.
That said, ESPN owning the SEC network hes little influence over this. ESPN has primary broadcasting rights to most of the conferences (including the Big Ten) and most of the big SEC games are actually aired on CBS. And if they had any agenda on the playoff, it would be to get the best ratings, and an SEC team playing a Big Ten team would get far better ratings than an SEC team playing another SEC team. You want to draw from a broad viewer base, not a limited one.
|6 days 5 hours ago||The defense is not as good as||
The defense is not as good as last year. And I don't think the offense is enough better to say that. I agree that they were better last year.
Keep in mind that part of the reason MSU got better relative to their competition last year as the season went on is that they never suffered any major injuries. Injuries can often play a major part on how well (or not well) a team does at the end of the season. Oregon has been a very healthy team the last few years, but this year they have numerous injuries on the OL and they are a completely different team.
If MSU can be equally fortunate this year, they have a shot. But that's out of their control and statistics suggests some of their guys will get hurt. Who those guys are can play a big role in how their season finishes.
|6 days 5 hours ago||Here's why I thought it was||
Here's why I thought it was so good:
First, he took the ball away from the defender. The defender was in great position to either pick it or at least bat it down, and that wouldn't have been Funchess's fault. But he was aggressive and took the ball. He didn't just catch it, he took it.
Secondly, he still had to bobble it as he was running full speed and getting bumped by the defender, yet he kept the body control and concentration to finish the catch.
Maybe that's not "ridiculous" but that's a pretty darn good play, all in all.
|6 days 5 hours ago||Did you watch the Miss St||
Did you watch the Miss St game? They didn't look all that great either. A couple times, the pro-SEC announcers (Gary Danielson and Verne Lundquist, I believe) said how they didn't feel this looked like 2 of the 3 best teams in the country.
|6 days 5 hours ago||But MSU's best win would be||
But MSU's best win would be against an (at best) 10-2 OSU, and absolutely nothing else to hang their hat on. ND would at least have ASU and USC, both of which will be better than MSU's next best win. And their loss would be better as well. At FSU will be viewed as tougher than at Oregon, who isn't looking incredible lately.
|6 days 5 hours ago||That's fine for radio shows,||
That's fine for radio shows, but the committee will not care what people on ESPN talk radio shows think. The point of those shows is for discussion.
|6 days 5 hours ago||If Oregon wins out they're in||
If Oregon wins out they're in over MSU, but I don't think they will win out. I don't expect a Pac-12 team to be in it.
I have a hard time seeing a Big 12 winner being lower than 12-1, and I think it will be Baylor. The Baylor-OU winner has a good shot and at 12-1 would get in over MSU.
I agree that the FSU-ND winner is likely in, especially if it's ND. They have a tough schedule, so even if they drop one they will be one of the better 1-loss teams. But to be honest, I think there's a really good chance both ND and FSU get in.
Obviously the SEC winner gets in, but I'm not sure another SEC team does. Either way, a 1-loss SEC team gets in over 1-loss MSU. It's still possible there just isn't another one of those, though.
So, no, I don't think MSU gets in. There's just a lot of uncertainly around most other individual teams.
|6 days 6 hours ago||I would certainly consider||
I would certainly consider Darrin Kirkland a not-commit.
This will happen for the rest of the season. Guys will either full-on commit elsewhere or be on the fence and at least look elsewhere. Then we will hire our new coach. Some of the on-the-fence guys will come back, some will have moved on, and some new guys will jump on. All in all, it will be worse than it was 2 months ago, but luckily it's a small class anyway so no hige deal.
The new guy will be a bunch of recruits simply by being the new guy at Michigan, and whether or not he wins will be the determining factor long-term, just like it always is.
|6 days 6 hours ago||We tied it up with him in||
We tied it up with him in there, remember.
|6 days 6 hours ago||What was he medicating with?||
What was he medicating with? Jager? If yes, then yes.
|6 days 6 hours ago||So because you know people||
So because you know people like you describe, that makes all participants like that? Do you think it's possible that at least some of the participants have the support of their friends and family?
My wife has ran multiple marathons and other long races and each time she took a lot of time for herself to do it. But I didn't care because it was important to her and I would hope she would support me in the same way if I chose to do something like that (I will not). And our boys are proud of her.
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of selfish people like how you claim. But your first post suggested all participants are like that and as many here have told you, that just isn't true.
|6 days 6 hours ago||I chose other because I think||
I chose other because I think the best play was McCray's play on the fake punt. That was incredible. It's tough to ask a guy who stands on the sidelines all game to come in at certain times and play heads up football like that. If PSU converts there, it might be a whole different game. They at least get a FG out of it I bet.
If I had to pick from one of the ones in the top 10, I would say either Clark's sack near the end zone or James Ross setting the edge (which looks fine to me). When I watched that live I thought it was a great play by Jake Ryan (it still was a good one) but Ross really deserves most of the credit there. Great play.
|6 days 6 hours ago||I think it's awesome because||
I think it's awesome because he's on my team. But if it was another team, I would still think it's funny. Because it's funny. it's not offensive or anything. I would think it's less cool because I think everything is cooler when Michigan does it, but I wouldn't have a problem with it from anyone else.
Bo would probably not approve. But then again, Bo coached at a different time too. Bo probably wouldn't like texting recruits. So if Bo coached today, he might approve.
|6 days 12 hours ago||Agreed. Not only is our O not||
Agreed. Not only is our O not great, we were playing without Magnuson, Green, Chesson and Khalid Hill (plus a hobbled DG). Considering the circumstances, they did fine.
|6 days 12 hours ago||The offense came to play.||
The offense came to play. Outside of the one bonehead throw by Gardner that led to the INT and the drives where either Bellomy was in, we moved the ball OK against a good defense. If Gardner plays that whole game healthy we win by double digits.
|1 week 2 days ago||Agreed. I've never been||
Agreed. I've never been against RR having success, but with all of the "look how bad Michigan is and how good RR is doing" articles, I want to see USC win by 50.
|1 week 3 days ago||I'm sure all schools have||
I'm sure all schools have some rule breakers, but some schools are much better at turning a blind eye to this stuff (or even facilitate it) than others.
And I've never read anything compelling that funneling money to players wouldn't result in a competitive advantage.
|1 week 3 days ago||But I disagree with you on||
But I disagree with you on that. The victims are the schools whose players aren't breaking the rules. Just like doing PEDS isn't victimless. If UGA is more desirable to recruits because their players can make money selling autographs, then there is a victim and that's everyone else.
|1 week 3 days ago||Have you ever thought that||
Have you ever thought that maybe the NCAA keeps enforcing these idiotic policies because the people they report to (the university presidents and athletic directors) don't think they're idiotic?
Maybe coaches don't want to deal with this stuff. "Sorry I was late for practice coach, my autograph session went late. Gotta make that money, right?"
|1 week 3 days ago||And this is where we||
And this is where we disagree. I think boosters paying players would be a major problem. I don't want players to weigh "how much I'll get paid in college" in to where they decide to play college football, for a lot of reasons.
|1 week 3 days ago||Sometimes it might be, but||
Sometimes it might be, but that doesn't make it OK to break the rules. If I sell drugs to feed my family, it's still against the law, even if my reasons for doing it are noble.
|1 week 3 days ago||But in your scenario, you||
But in your scenario, you could still have random boosters (or groups of them) bidding like crazy on the auction, and the problem isn't really any different. You would just have to make a ton of rules on this to limit any faul play and there just isn't enough enforcement to enforce those rules.
It's hard to enforce a rule when it's "do this but not this or this or this or this." It's easy to enforce a rule that it "don't do this is any way at all."