When I posted my question those last two Twitter posts were not part of the article. It was edited after my question... Forever making my question look stupid... Damn
I thought the NCAA recently passed a rule that would prevent this thing from happening. I'm almost positive I read somewhere that if a school hired the parent/coach of a player, they would not be able to recruit that player for 2 years. Is that actually a thing, or am I slowly losing my mind?
You're a very pessimistic person...
There are few things in this world that are a worse idea than a fast food burger castle selling colt 45 out of their dungeon...
It's funny, outside of the #1 overall pick, the browns could take a buckeye at their next for picks and become substantially better:
#12: Hooker (projected 5-12 range)
#33: Conley/Latimore (projected late first/early second)
#52: McMillan (projected early/mid second)
#65: Elflein (projected early third)
And yet the clowns will select exactly 0 of those players...
If we pulled the rug out from under him, it's a bush league move. I fear that sound I'm hearing is the crumbling of Haskell Garrett's commitment...
Umm "not liking" isn't the same as "not having and opinion on". The guy is allowed to comment.
Edit: dang it, you did the same to me! Ha
Thank you Hodge, you beat me to it. +1
There's a reason the guy got a comparable number of reps to Lattimore and Conley, the kid can play. He did not struggle like Arnett did, and he was consistently solid in coverage. Not spectacular, but solid. Sure, he got beat a couple times, and occasionally those beats were bad, but so did Apple in his first year getting snaps... and Conley...
Given the progression those two made I feel its safe to assume Ward makes a similar jump, especially because it would not be a reach to say he performed better this year than either of them did during their first tour of duty. What seems crazy is all the people saying a guy who has NEVER PLAYED A SNAP of major conference football is immediately going to be better than Ward, who has some 500 or so game snaps of experience to his name already. Why? Because of a highlight film where he dominated other mostly poor competition? Has anyone actually seen a whole game film of the kid? Because you all seem pretty certain that he's never been out of position or beat on a route in his entire career. Of course you're only going to see his good plays... its a highlight film!!!
Sorry, but if I'm a gambling man (which I'm not), I'm putting my money on the known quantity. This is not to say that I don't want Sheffield in this class, because I do, but to say that he is even guaranteed to start over Arnett at this point would be a stretch. (See Pridgon v. Prince)
Denzel Ward is going to be lock-down next year. Only way Sheffield has a chance to start is if Latimore goes pro. Unless you count battling Arnett for the nickel spot a starting role.
This is making me nervous. I want Holmes in this class in the worst way. I hope this is a "both" scenario and not a "one instead of the other" situation.
Lynn Bowden seems to be a hot name right now. His addition, or either one of the DT's we're chasing, would likely put us over the top.
Burns' game 1 pick 6 disagrees with you...
There are five choices on the graphic. But Michigan St looks like it's slowly being erased like a Marty McFly picture... So it only looks like three
80% of the time, Birm is right every time...
Absolutely. I didn't include us because I think our playoff floor is the 3 spot. I don't think Washington passes us even with a win. Therefore, we wouldn't be a round one option for bama
Someone remind me, who is it exactly that Alabama has beat that's any good? Or at least was any good when they played them? Don't say USC, they were a dumpster fire at the beginning of the season and are a completely different team right now. LSU maybe??? We could say the same thing about Wisconsin. Honestly, I think bama comes into the playoffs with an overinflated sense of self confidence and drops their first round game. Especially if they play a team with a defensive pulse, like wisc or Mich.
It was later confirmed that the smoke was nothing more than a dumpster fire
I don't mean to toot my own horn, but...
Here's a solution, if a coach leaves a school early, he should have the same issues as a transferring player: He has to sit out one year, unpaid.
This would punish the coach for bailing on his players and former school early, and also punish the school that hired them by forcing them to have a lame duck coach for a year, hindering recruiting and setting the program back a bit.
If a coach doesn't want to go through a year unpaid, then they can finish out their contract and sign with a school once they are a "free agent" of sorts. Just like a player who graduate transfers.
This was meant as sarcasm, but I actually believe that it's correct. If OSU loses to *ichigan they would still have 3 wins over teams that will likely still be in the top 15 by the end of the season: 2 loss Wisc - on the road, 2 loss Neb, and (hopefully) 2 loss Big 12 champ Oklahoma - also on the road. Having that resume should be more than enough to beat out said Oklahoma team for a spot, even though they would be a conference champ. If a team like Washington or Clemson drops a game, the conversation would get really interesting. I like our resume better than clemson's, who would only have one such win (assuming their loss would be to FSU), or washington's, who has no major resume building win to speak of.
This argument doesn't work so well for Michigan as their only top 15 win at the end of the season would be against Wisc at home.
Either way, I think this argument holds more weight if we are talking about one of these two teams losing to Wisc in the title game. If you can add a top 10 win against Mich to the above resume, to have 4 top 15 wins overall - two against conference champs (okla and wisc) - we would be really hard to keep out even if we lose the title game. There isn't a resume in the country that could compare to that.