JKH1232's picture


Member since 03 September 2010 | Blog

Helmet Stickers: 626 | Leaderboard

Recent Activity

Comment 04 Sep 2014

He signed up yesterday, and, he's pretty clearly either a troll, or a fairly deluded VT fan. Or both.  Or mentally ill, I guess you can't really discount that.

Comment 26 Aug 2014

Panicked would be a strong way of putting it, but I'm concerned and interested about the game.  Do I think we're going to lose?  Not really.  Do I think we can lose?  Absolutely.  If you think this is an auto-win by three scores, and we'll have the backups in by the third quarter, A) Prepare for disappointment, and B) watch more football. 

Navy punches above its weight class, and consistently.  They usually have one blowout loss, (Sometimes rather incomprehensible ones) but most of their losses are close.  They consistently beat the middle ranks of the Big5- Indiana lost at home to them last year.  Notre Dame has a hard time beating them.  Part of this is that Navy runs an excellent scheme that minimizes their pretty severe weaknesses (Players have to make weight, survive Navy's academics, and get admitted in the first place) and maximizes their strengths.  They also don't give up easily.  They aren't going to walk into the game on Saturday thinking they can't win.  And they won't think it when they're down a couple of scores, either- they've come back quite a bit, and if they can just get it to overtime, they're pretty sure they'll win.  Some teams, you roll out the silver helmets, say a little O-H, and it's over.  This generally isn't true for Navy.

If you don't think Keenan Reynolds isn't that good, you simply are not paying attention.  He is.  You talk about the bowl game (Which Navy was never in danger of losing) and mention he didn't have a good game.  Which is fine, Navy still scored 24 points and ran for 366 yards.  In fact, Reynolds ran for more yards than Braxton Miller did last year.  Scored more total touchdowns, too. Miller passed better, but also had much better receivers.  He's also a tremendous leader- he's led several comebacks, overtime wins, big wins, bowl wins, and has been doing it since his Freshman year.  I wouldn't take him over Miller, but he's very, very good, and in an offense that he knows how to run well.  He'd start for more than half the teams in FBS. 

TL;DR: Navy's real. Reynolds is real.  Don't worry, but don't be shocked if we're still playing football with five minutes to go. 

Comment 23 Jul 2014

Nope.  Nothing interesting ever happens against Purdue.

(I'm just going to assume that worked.)

Comment 10 Jul 2014

I dunno- Navy's quarterback is easily the second best one they've had since World War II- It may not be the same guy who started game three in '62, but he's not a chump.  I watched him play as a frosh, and he was good even then,

Comment 06 May 2014

I don't know if "forget" is the right word, exactly- D-coordinators aren't just deleting their 4-3 scheme run blitzes and tossing them out of their minds.  Those parts of the playbook still exist.  The advantage a tradition I-formation, power run to play action team in a spread to run and airraid world would be a lack of player experience.  After all, what's one of the advantages of the Flexbone system?  Only a few teams run it, and you have to run a different defense to stop it- so, that week, defensive coaches have to completely change course, and defensive players have to forget everything they know for just that week.  

You'd also have an advantage in recruiting, since you could focus on players that don't fit into those spread schemes, but do fit into yours.  Less competition and all.  You won't get the best athletes, probably, but you can make it work- Stanford wins a lot of football games like this already.  Will you win national titles?  Probably not.  But you'll compete, for sure.

I think the lesson here is that you can win a lot of football games, especially in college or high school, by doing what everyone else isn't doing, so long as you have a plan, the right players, and people believe it will work. After all, Rich Rod developed his spread-to-run system just to find a way to win a game with the players he had.

Comment 01 Apr 2014

There are  two caveats to that rule that are in play (That I'm aware of, but I could be corrected easily.)

1, If the pass is thrown behind the line of scrimmage, then offensive lineman can be beyond the line of scrimmage- every screen pass in football relies on this rule, from high school to the pros.

2.  In the college game, but not the professional game, linemen may be three yards beyond the line of scrimmage before the pass is thrown.  Yes, Corey Linsely and Andrew Norwell are pretty well beyond that, but, as Ross mentioned, that rarely gets called in the college game, unless it's pretty blatant or the lineman touches the ball first.  Or the lineman runs a pick route or something silly. 

Actually, just from my observation, most ineligible man calls are really procedural calls- the offense lines up such that one receiver covers another one, and then runs a pass.  (It really could be called illegal formation, too, I suspect, though I think college has less strict rules about formations than the pros.)

Comment 17 Feb 2014

So, I'll admit, I came to True Detective largely out of my interest in Lovecraftian horror- someone on a mailing list I'm on mentioned that he was watching it, and that, in episode 2, a character started babbling about the King in Yellow and Carcosa... and that tends to get my attention pretty quickly.  So, I picked up the series, and mostly stayed for the story, acting and cinematography, like most people.  I think it's a pretty solid series, so far, and I think the extended serial format is going to be interesting, since there's a definite start/middle/end, with no pressure to extend the story- I wonder if we'll see the revival of the rather maligned miniseries, given television has supplanted cinema as the place to be innovative in your filmmakng and story telling.

That said, a lot of my friends, and myself, are as interested in the "Will they or won't they" take the story in a Lovecraftian turn- after all, the story is framed in a rather Lovecraftian way- protagonists telling the story of an investigation in hindsight, not in unfolding time, and how fucked up Chole has become- a drunk who gave up an intellectually challenging job for menial work and self medication- and a lot of our speculation involves if Chole is going to go to Carcosa or have a similar glimpse of horror beyond time and space, or if the bad guy is just crazy and really liked weird tales before going nuts.  (And how much of what we see is real/the truth/a polite fiction, how much of it is being told to the modern investigators, etc., etc,) 

Comment 14 Feb 2014

I dunno. As a military historian, I can tell you that this is the real definition of blitzkrieg.


Comment 31 Jan 2014

It depends on how you run it, really.  The big thing for the Meyer spread to work that the defense respect the QB as a runner- it works best if the QB is a threat, like Miller or Tebow, but a QB that can break it for 6 yards still keeps you ahead of the sticks.  And if he's a proficient passer, you run more passes to spread the D, then dink and dunk the running game- it's just a matter of getting the right mix for the right players.

Comment 28 Jan 2014

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you'll find that labor law makes a very sharp distinction between playing amateur athletics and at will employment. 

Or are you saying that student-athletes should pay income tax on all their benefits?

Comment 28 Jan 2014

Perhaps, though, I can't see the NLRB accepting the union, since sports in college are voluntary.  Any leverage would have to come from some other quarter. 

Comment 28 Jan 2014

I do think players should be involved in running the NCAA, on some level.  I just don't know if a union formed under the purview of the NLRB and the labor laws of the US is the right way to do it.

Comment 28 Jan 2014

Well, one, plenty of people *do* know the names of players at Northwestern, the fact that you don't says more about you than others.  Second, people *are* profiting off their names- Northwestern sells athletic gear like anyone else.  It sells, like anywhere else, even if the clientele is smaller than, say, OSU or Michigan or Alabama.  EA, until recently, made millions of them, without even crediting them.  So, they do have some points- particularly when it comes to video games and clothing sales directly with their name on it- or when people coopt their nicknames, like people selling "Johnny Football" gear, specifically for fans of Johnny Manziel, and not giving him a dime. (Which, of course, led to him trademarking the name, which was a good move.)

Of course, they are pretty well compensated.  Training table meals, school materials, tuition, medical insurance, access to medical specialists, training facilities and the like- and they get these no matter the amount of revenue their school gets. (Tennis scholarships cover the same classes as football ones.)  To me, the problem lies in a few directions:

1) Apparel sales of specific player's jerseys or using their likeness by the university or their approved apparel vendors. 

2) The use of players in video games.

3) The sale of third party items using players, their nicknames or their likenesses.

4) The uncompensated use of athletes to promote the university, in fundraising or commercials or in publications.  (Remember, coaches receive specific compensation for this beyond salary.)

5) The *inability* of players to endorse products for compensation.

Now, admittedly, 4) just might be part of the scholarship.  That said, scholarships should outline, *In writing* the obligations of players for promoting and fundraising for the university.  1), however, is a sticky spot, and I'll admit it.  I think that, given the cost of scholarships, it's not too much to ask players to sign over their rights on the apparel front to the university as a standard part of the deal, but it should be made explicit. 

It's 2) and 3) that really bother me.  Firstly, no one should be able to profit off of a college kid's abilities that isn't the university or him.  So, I think schools should aggressively pursue and sue unofficial vendors making money off their students, or allow students to do the same thing, and win damages.  As for video games, do what the professionals do- negotiate a license that pays both the schools and the players for appearing in them.  Each player gets paid the same thing, and let the players form an organization like a union to negotiate that for them.  If you're bothered by giving an 18 year old that much cash, put it into a low risk, interest bearing account and pay them off when they graduate.  (This does make graduating an incentive!)

The fifth problem is just stupid.  Olympic competitors can endorse things.  Let college kids do the same.

Comment 28 Jan 2014

I'm not that sure of the correctness of your analogy- presumably, you knew that, going in, if you didn't keep a certain GPA, you would lose support.  However, athletic scholarships do carry the same  provision- fail to make a certain GPA, become academically ineligible, and perhaps suffer sanctions at the school. 

An academic scholarship and an athletic scholarship, however, have never been the same thing.  The basic deal, even in our time of one year scholarships, has always been, "Come play on the team, and we'll cover tuition to school."  Culturally, those scholarships have been honored even for busts, so long as they obey team rules, etc.  (Consider how often it's news when a coach refuses to reup scholarships.)  Coaches almost *never* explain that it's a renewable deal, and sell kids on the idea that they'll get their degree, so long as they play by the rules.  Thus, when coaches do cut kids from their roster, it becomes something of a scandal.

Secondly, the academic scholarship has a specific, measurable standard of performance: keep your GPA above this level.  Also, obey university rules (Academic scholarships always include that, trust me).  But what would constitute inferior athletic performance?  We're just going to leave that up to the coaches, and let them decide what that means? If a kid can't break the two deep on a team, is it his fault, or the coaches that recruited him?  Did the coaches put him in a position to fail?  Did he get hurt and couldn't perform to his maximum one year, so he gets cut? 

No.  This is too ripe for abuse, and not part of the understood agreement.  So long as they keep up their GPA and obey team and school rules, then those on athletic scholarships should keep their scholarship.  They actually *are* here to play school, remember?

Comment 24 Jan 2014

I think we'll have more close/interesting games than tough ones.  I'm trying to avoid work, so I'll give my shilling on the matter:

Navy: Closer score than the game probably will be.  Navy has an *excellent* quarterback for the system, and the triple option will be tough on new players.  2nd half, their D can't stop our O, and we will grind them down for a two score win.

VT: It's at home, so I think it's a win, since VT is a little behind.  Probably not a blowout- one of those get out early, hold of a late surge kind of games

Kent State: Takes their money, makes a good play or two, goes home thinking about MACtion.

Cincy: Cincy will come out hard to try to prove something, but will stumble more as the game goes on.  Expect a tight first half, though.

Rugers: Home Game, B1G opener, I don't think Rutgers puts up much of a fight.

Maryland: The first B1G away game, so I'd expect some jitters, but good guys pull away towards the end.

Penn State: They're going to come out hard, play tough, and then realize that it's still not 1986, or even 2008.  Expect an ESPN Sad Co-Ed gifable moment in the early 4th when the PSU QB throws a pick-six just as they start a comeback.  This game strikes me as the bellweather for the season.

Illinois: Warm up for the next game.

MSU: This is a tough one to call.  If Ohio State is rockin' going in, I think we pull out the close one.  If we're not up to snuff, we're losing this one.  I wouldn't be shocked if we lost, but I kinda hope Sparty will SPARTY NO this one.  They're due. (If we've lost to PSU, we lose this one, too.)

Minnesota: It's an away game, so it'll be closer than we like.  Also, it'll be cold as balls, I'll bet.  Still, Minnesota doesn't have the horses to run two halves with us.  I think it'll be close until the last two minutes of the first half, when everything changes, letting Lou Holtz make one of his speeches about the last two minutes of the first half against a good team.  Maybe including his three safeties on a kickoff speech.

Indiana: I'm sure there will be some talk on this one- someone on OSU will be hurt that's important, Indiana will probably look good in a game or two.  Then, they come to Ohio Stadium and it looks like 2013 all over again.

Fuckers: Those guys play well against us in Whore-Town, but, since Tressel, get rocked in the Shoe.  This trend continues.

Put a gun to my head?  12-1 at the end of the year, with a win in the Capital One Bowl against an SEC team that's either playing over it's head or disappointed that their here.  Unless we beat MSU.  Then it's 13-0 and a 1 or 2 seed heading into the playoffs, since I don't see Wisco beating us in the B1G championship.


Comment 22 Jan 2014

Personally, I'd come in somewhere between 3 and 4- if you're signing guys in February with the intention of cutting guys off scholarship to make 85 by summer camp, or whenever the NCAA says you have to be on 85, and at least some of those cuts aren't a mutual decision- someone transferring, taking a hardship, or becoming ineligible.  If you know that's coming in February, you can pick up some extra recruits, even if it puts you over 85 for that day- some transfers won't be public/paper work done until the summer or that kind of thing.

To me, oversigning really kicks in when you're actively managing who is on and who is off- like, most famously, when Les Miles called in guys a week before camp started and told them they were off scholarship, and good luck, or Nick Saban sending guys to the hardship line and off the team when, in fact, they haven't had career ending injuries.  Basically, if you're cutting kids you promised a scholarship because they aren't panning out and you want another freshman to maybe make the team, you're oversigning.