Things have gotten all kinds of screwed up for me.
I can't 100% say I played on Saturday (I thought I had, but maybe not), but apparently things didn't register and on Sunday my streak had reset (3 star down to 1).
Also, Sunday when I clicked to get my order the button was unresponsive, I clicked a few more times. Eventually I had about 5 orders flash on my screen all at once. I executed the last order as it was all I could see. Today I'm blacklisted (I'm currently defending a territory bordering OSU to be safe).
If any of the organizers could help with the blacklist thing that would be great. (reddit name same as my user name here).
The APR follows the NCAA trend of delegation to remove responsibility from themselves.
If you lookup how its defined (https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/academic-progress-rate-explained), its based off of the academic eligibility of different players. The eligibility of the players is based on how they preform in the classroom, a function of the university. While coaches cannot directly consult teachers to effect student class scores, you can bet that the rigor of courses is not consistent across all universities.
I'm not saying that Northwestern doesn't have an outstanding academic program. But, if you think that Alabama's APR score means that the athletes at Alabama are receiving a better education than those at Michigan, you are ill informed.
I'm not opposed to the idea of a two tiered targeting system, but I dislike the idea of intent to determine the severity of targeting. A player can tackle with poor form, making incidental targeting more likely, but no intent to target. That should still be a severe penalty; the player caused the targeting with their poor decision.
IMO, targeting should only be given a weaker penalty if its unreasonable for the offending player to avoid the helmet contact due to circumstances outside of their control (e.g. they were blocked into the player, or the other player suddenly lowered their head).
That wording would (and should) be insufficient for actual rule creation, but I believe it demonstrates my point.
Recent Comments
Things have gotten all kinds of screwed up for me.
I can't 100% say I played on Saturday (I thought I had, but maybe not), but apparently things didn't register and on Sunday my streak had reset (3 star down to 1).
Also, Sunday when I clicked to get my order the button was unresponsive, I clicked a few more times. Eventually I had about 5 orders flash on my screen all at once. I executed the last order as it was all I could see. Today I'm blacklisted (I'm currently defending a territory bordering OSU to be safe).
If any of the organizers could help with the blacklist thing that would be great. (reddit name same as my user name here).
The APR follows the NCAA trend of delegation to remove responsibility from themselves.
If you lookup how its defined (https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/academic-progress-rate-explained), its based off of the academic eligibility of different players. The eligibility of the players is based on how they preform in the classroom, a function of the university. While coaches cannot directly consult teachers to effect student class scores, you can bet that the rigor of courses is not consistent across all universities.
I'm not saying that Northwestern doesn't have an outstanding academic program. But, if you think that Alabama's APR score means that the athletes at Alabama are receiving a better education than those at Michigan, you are ill informed.
Of course the NCAA would consider esports. I'm amazed they haven't sooner.
Do you know how much the video game producers would pay the NCAA for there to be a positive educational association with their game?
"Mom, can I have game X? I can get a scholarship to college with it!"
This feels like a business relation dream for the NCAA... err... An excellent opportunity to give more scholarships to deserving athletes.
I'm not opposed to the idea of a two tiered targeting system, but I dislike the idea of intent to determine the severity of targeting. A player can tackle with poor form, making incidental targeting more likely, but no intent to target. That should still be a severe penalty; the player caused the targeting with their poor decision.
IMO, targeting should only be given a weaker penalty if its unreasonable for the offending player to avoid the helmet contact due to circumstances outside of their control (e.g. they were blocked into the player, or the other player suddenly lowered their head).
That wording would (and should) be insufficient for actual rule creation, but I believe it demonstrates my point.