Can't expect us to compete with blueblood programs like Tennessee.
You're not allowed to talk about getting offers from other schools, even though the school you've committed to can pull your offer at any time for any reason? Seems totally fair!
Also: Paul Chryst is not more boring than Kirk Ferentz. And I say that not because I'm familiar with Chryst, but because I am familiar with Ferentz.
My concern for the last few months, which only intensified after the Bazley decommit, is all of this put together:
1. We won't turn things around without better recruits (who are either NBA-ready or who want to hang around past two years).
2. Everyone knows Matta is going into next season with his job on the line, and anything short of an NCAA bid will likely mean that he's fired.
3. The best recruits will not sign with programs whose coaches are under the gun.
I might add that part of the problem we're now facing for next season relates to the fact that for some reason, Thad never seems to want to carry a full roster of 13 players. If you're already short a couple of guys and then you get a transfer/dropout and an early departure (which should not have been a major surprise), you're setting yourself up for giant roster issues.
The recruiting class headlined by Amir Williams is literally the high point of the last five seasons. Think on that for a few minutes.
I've talked about this before, but if the playoff was ever expanded -- and let's be real, it's going to happen eventually -- football should not repeat the example of basketball, where once you get to the major conference level there's literally no reward for winning your league. To preserve the importance of the regular season, there needs to be a tangible advantage to winning your conference, whether through seeding or through a provision that only a conference champion can host a playoff game (sorry, Notre Dame).
I guess I don't understand why, if a kid is able to play as a freshman for 4 games, he wouldn't be capable of playing in all the other games too?
Redshirting is a luxury that giant rosters afford you. It's certainly not a requirement.
Sounds good. But he's going to have to be sold on the school and the lure of staying at home, because this is widely perceived as a lame duck staff.
I concur on Ole Miss That's a program with a lot of tradition, and we've never played them, not even in a bowl.
I absolutely don't want to see Cincinnati on the schedule every year. Nonconference opponents who play every year are typically seen as equal in some way, like Oklahoma and Texas back when they were in different conferences, or Georgia/GT and Clemson/So. Carolina now (at least the "lesser" teams there are Power 5 teams). Why give the Bearcats and their fans any ideas that they are a peer of ours in any way?
I feel the same way about Peppers going to the Browns as I would if a player from one of my old high school's rivals signed with the Buckeyes, or if one of my pro teams made a trade for someone I had a long history of hating (this actually happens quite a bit): what's past is past.
Just for the record, I think Peppers can be a fine NFL strong safety, though I don't disagree with those who felt Hooker or Jonathan Allen would have been better choices even leaving the acquired draft choice out of it.
The market should decide if there are "too many bowls," but I think there are a couple of indicators that the answer is yes:
1. The original bowls were all set in typical vacation locales, but there are only so many of those to go around. With all due respect to Shreveport, Annapolis, and Mobile, there's a reason that you're not going to find a Lonely Planet travel guide to those cities.
2. A majority of the bowls now match up unranked team vs. unranked team, and games like that usually aren't considered must-watch whether they're played in October or December.
A lot of the bowls now really aren't making money for anyone: they're break-even propositions for the schools, and essentially subsidized by ESPN, which is happy to have programming for a few weeks but doesn't have much cash to spare nowadays themselves. I suspect we'll see shrinkage in the next few years.
And also, some of them might be in the same class as Tyvis Powell a year ago: players who "left early" only in the sense of still having football eligibility, but having gotten their degree.
So 1-15 didn't cause you to abandon the Browns, but a draft did?
A tough but fair take from a young man looking to earn an NBA paycheck in a couple of years.
I know that's how a lot of high school stars think, but does Bazley really project as someone who will be a one-and-done? Even Kennard stayed for two years, and Bazley is not in that class.
I don't know why the young man found the need to take a shot at Kaleb Wesson, who frankly seems like a better recruit than Bazley. But most of what he said is just stating the obvious.
Disappointed that we're not getting a TCU return visit, and I'd rather tailgate at a college campus than at the world's largest parking lot. But I'm glad more people will be able to go to the game; Amon Carter is a pretty small stadium for a Power 5 school.
The kid knows there's going to be a new coach here a year from now. Why tie your fate to someone who is completely unknown?
Smith really should have thought of that when he decided to keep Thad on for a "dead man walking" season.
First of all, the fact that the Buckeyes got into the playoff and lost last season shouldn't make a bit of difference. I've said this before, but one of the dumbest arguments I see every year, regarding things like March Madness or the CFP, is "So-and-so lost, so that just proves they didn't belong to begin with." News flash: every tournament game or playoff game has a losing team! The Buckeyes losing doesn't make the decision to admit them originally any less valid.
Now having said that, obviously any team that doesn't win its conference is going to face an uphill battle getting into the playoff. The Bucks had some good luck last year in that they had key arguments to make against their two main competitors, Penn State (better record, no blowout loss) and Oklahoma (head-to-head win). But that's not always going to be the case, as we saw in 2015.
He will definitely help us a lot if he comes back, but I really believe the idea that he can impress the NBA by staying in college is unrealistic. How many fifth-year seniors have been taken in the NBA draft in the last, say, 10 years? I'd be surprised if I couldn't count them on one hand. If you're not seen as an NBA prospect by the time you're 22, it's highly unlikely to ever happen.
Oklahoma, because it's early in the season, they always have talent, and there's no substitute for experience at quarterback; and Michigan, for the obvious reasons.
I see Nebraska and Iowa as .500-ish teams, and UNLV is downright awful. And my assumption is that Penn State's epic 2016 luck is bound to turn this season.
Yeah, there's no reason why the sort of success that Wisconsin has had these last two decades shouldn't have happened at Illinois instead (their one fluke Rose Bowl aside). Especially when you consider that two of the schools that have traditionally competed hard for Illinois/Chicago area talent, Notre Dame and Nebraska, have themselves been down in recent years.
I don't think BC is what one usually thinks of as an ultimate destination, so we may see Jarmond again some day.
My own opinion is that Matta's early success was built on three huge strokes of good luck, or two strokes of good luck and one case of being able to project growth in an unfinished player:
1. The cratering of the Indiana program at the precise time Greg Oden, Mike Conley, and Deshaun Thomas were being recruited (the Buckeyes had never had an Indiana recruit who was any good before those guys)
2. The discovery of Evan Turner, for which (if I'm not mistaken) John Groce deserves much of the credit
3. A Top 5 recruit in Columbus who happened to be a program legacy in Jared Sullinger.
But Indiana came back, sort of, and super recruits from Columbus are rare (and as we've seen lately, not always recognized as such by this staff). And however they were able to find Turner once upon a time, the ability to look at a raw 16-year-old and gauge whether he can play Big Ten basketball, or will develop a singular skill like running the point or being able to knock down threes, seems to be beyond our current coaches. I've said this before, but how is that the school Matta left because allegedly you can't win a national championship there, Xavier, can consistently find players able to elevate a team to a March Madness level while THE state university can't?
Why would the Pac-12 have their championship game in Vegas, when there are no Nevada teams in the conference? That makes as much sense as having the Big Ten basketball tournament at Madison Squa-- uh ... never mind
I tried to make this point the other day: that when Meyer finally decides to make the call on who the #2 is, it can't just be about the 2017 season. The Buckeyes will probably lose the loser of this battle, so it also has to be about who will start in 2018 and (maybe) 2019. That's the more vital question IMO, since I think the normal workload of a backup QB is well within the capabilities of both Burrow and Haskins. Both of them are currently way ahead of where JT was as of the 2014 spring game.
We've never seen Burrow "read the D" aside from the spring game or against a bad team's backups. That's not saying he's not able, only that if someone is comparing Barrett's play in pressure situations against some of the best teams in the country and Burrow's play against people that can't start for Rutgers, they're probably making a mistake.