How would people in Pittsburgh feel about Penn State being celebrated at a Pirates game? It seems kinda similar. Granted, Pitt has a grander past than Cincy, and Penn State doesn't have much to celebrate, but they are Pennsylvania State University, while Pitt is just Pitt.
I don't really think those factors matter. I mean, sure, he may have had no intent and/or maybe no harm was done. That, in turn, might mean that no punishment is warranted. That's all good, as he says. My point was only that there's practically no doubt that his posting was out of compliance. He should have known better. Still simple.
Don't see how it's (several synonyms for complicated) at all. He was lending his name and athlete status to the promotion a commercial venture not called the NCAA. Fail.
A key feature - texture-wise - is that you don't brown the ground beef first. Just boil the piss out of it.
Ummm... Err... Yeah...
Speaking as someone who had the bad taste to actually like those uni's, it was also appropriate to have other nasty habits...
Yeah, that's the ticket.
I remember being at the Home and Garden Show on the fairgrounds. Those booths that had TV's were holding quite a crowd. Hearing the wild cheers in that normally quiet event was cool.
I think "inconsistency" is too often used to attack principled positions. You don't have to join every fight in order to justify joining one.
Right. But Seattle, too, could have made better use of that time. I get that they didn't want to leave New England much time, but that assumes they score. They could have run Lynch more than once in the time left if they hadn't stood there at the line of scrimmage burning time. If he fails, THEN call the time out and throw into the end zone.
This makes me curious.. I suppose that the BigHeaded Farmboy at Nebraska has a name, and the bird at Iowa... but other than the ones mentioned above, I can't think of any other actual mascot names. (Does Indiana even have one?)
Without looking on the internet, does anyone know the names of other B1G mascots?
I think we can have it both ways, within reason: we use the star system to get a rough feel for how well recruiting is going relative to other years and to other teams. We can't all have the access or expertise to judge this ourselves. At the same time, we have confidence in our coaching staff's ability to choose and develop players, so we trust THEIR judgement.
What I'm disputing is that the ratings are "either worthwhile or they aren't". They are worthwhile to a point.
I don't have direct experience as a professional athlete or at making 7 figure salaries, but I suspect it's possible to both take the job seriously, and to have fun with your teammates.
456 (not that easy to find an unused number at this point)
I don't think the "numbers mean squat". Nor have we "played no one".
We've put up really good numbers against mediocre opposition. That means something. It's a whole lot better, for example, than putting up bad numbers against that competition. Will that translate to success against top-notch teams? Don't know yet. It's asking a lot, though, to suggest that all Buckeye fans should sit on their hands, and all Buckeye sites should go silent until the team "proves it".
At big time programs, the AD's job could be defined as
1) Hire/Fire Coaches
2 through n) Other stuff - Maybe important stuff, but not #1 stuff.
Similarly, the head coaches job could be defined as
1) Win games
2 through n) Other stuff. Important stuff, yes, but not #1 stuff.
Michigan has been bungling the number 1's. End of story.
What statement? Maybe you really didn't mean this as a reply to my comment. I said nothing about twitter being evil. I was only commenting on the several posts that suggest that the difference between good and not-good recruit tweeting is in the age of the tweeter.
I don't get the "if you're the same age, it's OK" argument. If you're tweeting to a recruit because he's a recruit, then you're not just being a peer. It's not "kids to kids"; it's [over] zealous fan to recruit. What does age have to do with it?
"He is what he is" can be said about anybody. He's not what we need him to be. He may be a great guy but he occasionally dawdles down the court on defense, he too often can't handle interior passes, and he keeps bringing the damn ball down where the small guys steal it from him. He doesn't appear to be strong enough or maybe tough enough to impose his will on the defenders. So yeah, people complain. It's not personal.
Personally, I don't get the hating on the NCAA for expecting schools to self-report (trivial) violations. They don't want it left up to the institution to decide what is trivial. Sure, nobody cares if you butt-dial some prospect, but if you didn't have to report these, pretty soon the SEC schools would be "accidently" calling dozens of prospects a day. They'd be accidently handing out "trivial" gifts, and pretty soon "trivial" amounts of Benjamins....
As as been said before, we don't know why she's doing what she's doing. Maybe she's meddling unnecessarily, or maybe she has solid reasons. Not to pick on you particularly, RunEddie, but some people seem to be projecting their own "Mama" (if you must) issues...
Having rich boosters giving to the institution is one thing. But as soon as there's a legal way to funnel unlimited cash to the players themselves, it's a very quick slide down the slope to where the players are negotiating guarantees of income before signing day in February. If that's where you want to go, then fine, lets just do that and not pretend to be paying them for value of their signatures.