I remember hearing secondary violation totals ALL THE TIME before "Tat-gate" (are we really still calling it that? sigh). Relax everybody. Just because other schools have lower secondary reports doesn't mean they have lower violations. OSU has long been known to be dilligent about reporting this stuff.
Take a look at what's popular on TV. We're there.
I think it's because all anti-playoff arguments are bad. Plus-One isn't great, but it's better than the BCS because >2 teams would be included. At this point, I'm for whatever the next step has to be.
It is even sillier to think that anyone is going to be happier with NO national champion. You can't unring that bell. Your point actually makes more sense if you were arguing FOR a playoff. Since you can't "pick" a champion out of 120 teams who only play a dozen or so games under wildly different circumstances, then you just have to find a way to "pick" the 8, 12, 16, 24, etc. best and let them sort it out by, you know, playing that sport you love to watch.
Best argument for a playoff? More football > Less football.
Every game matters??? How can you even say that right now?
But if we win out, then doesn't it make the most sense to keep Fickell as HC anyway? Beating undefeated Illinois, thorn-in-the-side presumed conference champ Wisconsin, sorta-rival Penn State, and actual-rival Michigan with new improved douchebag coach, and then possibly the Big Ten CG and/or decent bowl game isn't enough for him to keep this job considering the circumstances? Are there really people who think that Urban Meyer is automatically better than that?
The Big Ten relaxed the oversigning rule slightly a little while ago (2002?) to allow for minor oversigning (by no more than 3) as long as the school providing an explanation to the conference for it. I can't say that I know who--if anyone--has used it or what their explanation was.
The problem with oversigning is that the process that appears to be used by some SEC coaches (and others) seems to be at the expense of student-athletes who have done nothing wrong outside of not being as good at football as was once believed (or at least as good as a new kid appears to be). The Big Ten decided, long before Delany or Saban or oversigning.com, that they didn't want any part of that, so they banned it.
Other conferences allow it, because it's not really against NCAA rules (at least not the letter of the rules) and it happens to be a competitive advantage, provided that you actually know what to do with all that talent once you've sifted through it.
Should we be like them and expose more kids to some potentially life-altering decisions (of others) in the name of winning more football games?
Bumbled expansion? Compare his road to 12 to everyone else's:
Big Ten: Penn State, Nebraska
ACC: Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College
SEC: Arkansas, South Carolina
Pac-10/12: Colorado, Utah
Big 12: TCU and ? (unless Missouri leaves and they still aren't back at 12)
He revolutionized conference media deals with BTN (and our conference still has the best model simply by virture of not being in bed with ESPN) and brought instant replay to college football.
Does he suck at naming things? I'll give you that one (and he does botch the PR at times), but he has done nothing but good things for this conference financially.
I was there, and that's how I took it too. Obviously I can't speak for each individual who was booing and I certainly wasn't one of them and don't think there were any in my immediate vicinity. But we were ALL grumbling about the absence of Miller, which (unless he really was hurt) was inarguably baffling. It just seemed to me that the frustration was more with the strategy than the player, although the player was throwing some pretty lousy passes.
Seriously though, you know that cup stacking is one of the dirtiest sports around, right?
"Miami University" is in Ohio. "University of Miami" is the object of Li'l Dookie's affection and/or ire. This is a big deal to some people.
New Kids and Backstreet Boys teamed up to form Boy Band Voltron and are now on tour. They were just in Columbus so the vid must be from that.
Are you sure that a suspension for "violating team rules" would have been an acceptable move? They violated NCAA rules, and the NCAA would have to have been told about it, at which point it's kind of their decision as far as what is revealed, isn't it?
Not saying he did the right thing or wrong thing here, just not sure if this solution is really viable.
The last is a point that should not ever be forgotten. Ours is one of the very few athletic departments in the country that can even do such a thing. It is completely self-sustaining and the fact that we choose to use athletic dollars for academic improvement should be a source of pride.
First of all, the Texas game at the 'Shoe was in 2005 (and yeah, I get to do that since you made it a point to correct someone's extra "f") and I was there. I neither witnessed nor participated in any "screaming [of] endless profanities." I would also be interested in what the Texas fans were doing before these supposed attacks, because I imagine that if we took to the streets of Ann Arbor (or anywhere else) after a victory chanting "O-H-I-O," the reception would not be a pleasant one.
But what I really don't understand is how you're making the connection between a supposed "homer" on a message board to some immature, drunk college students acting inappropriately at a football game.
Sorry, I'm waiting on Cross Village's course in copying stuff from Wikipedia.
Godwin's Law is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.
Also, 5+11+11 = 27.
"...whether Cargate would ultimately end up in the "major" or "minor" category. My instinct is to think it's the former, and if nothing else, this gives me some measure of optimism."
In this case, the former would be "major," which doesn't seem to inspire optimism. I'm guessing you meant the latter.
If Emmert is going to get tough on everybody and we just happen to be first, then so be it. I'll believe that when I see it though.
Boise's LOIC is really just for the tennis player who wasn't actually a student, right? It's hard to come up with an argument that Compliance was doing their job when you have someone not even enrolled at your school competing on one of your teams.
ESPN pretty much has the full range of reporter types. SportsCenter for the most part just tries to deliver the facts (although they do get some minor details wrong here and there). The shouting shows do what they do, and as a fan, you have to learn not to take them seriously.
What bugs me the most is the constant repetition of things like "11 of 12 coaches who have violated 10.1 resigned or were fired" without mention of the fact that 11 of those 12 also were guilty of a wide array of additional wrongdoings, while Tressel (at least as of now) appears to have ONLY violated 10.1. That's a big difference and could change a lot of people's opinions on the issue.
I don't think that ESPN as a whole is "out to get" Ohio State (or anyone else), but I do think they have hired a lot of people who dislike us for one reason or another. I also feel that their TV deals (a response to the success of the B1G Network, a direct threat to their bottom line) make them less than trustworthy as a journalistic entity.
I just watched this sequence for the first time. My initial assumption upon hearing about it was that it was simply a processing or acknowledgment thing. Having watched it, I can definitely see why some people are taking it as an affirmative answer. There is a clear difference between listening and beginning to answer in this case, and I do believe the big nod is the beginning of an answer. I can't go so far to say that it constitutes an answer in itself though, as we don't really know what he was going to say.
It is telling that Smith stopped him quickly and declared it something that could not be talked about.
68 teams in the tourney now.
He sold the stuff when he was a freshman. You really think he was weighing the immediate need (or desire) of $2500 against potential (though not guaranteed) earnings at least a few years in the future? I admire you for having never made a mistake in your youth.
Based on the punishment, the NCAA seems to agree that he paid for his tattoos. He just didn't pay enough.
I hope he comes back, takes his suspension like a man, watches Guiton or Miller (or both) lead the team to five straight victories, then returns to the helm and destroys Nebraska before steamrolling the rest of the Big Ten on his way to a National Title. And then I hope you don't change your mind about him.
Because that would be hypocritical.