I was disappointed we never utilized a dual-QB last season - and I mean both on the field at the same time. From a coaching standpoint it certainly isn't easy to come up with how exactly it can work, but the possibilities of having those two talents on the field at the same time is just so exciting. I'd love to see what Meyer/Herman could come up with.
Hey I think there's been a mistake, they're showing Marshall when I think they meant Arkansas.
Hoke is such a traditionalist, except that the game has only been played on the last Saturday in November since B1G expansion.
Pretty cool stuff.
Got me thinking about Nebraska football and browsing their Wikipedia page. For 30 years, from 1968 to 1998, they never lost 4 games in a season!
I think people forget the list of OSU coaches that preceded Woody who were essentially canned because of failures in the The Game - Francis Schmidt included. That was why Woody came in and made it such an emphasis to win that one, he knew, if he could beat TSUN he wouldn't wear out his welcome. Come to think of it, sounds a lot like the guy that preceded Urban.
Ton of issues!
1. I usually use Chrome and Chromecast. I was receiving 'Internal Error' messages which wouldn't allow me to log in with Time Warner.
2. I switch over to Mozilla (in a rush at this point). Get logged in ok, then as I click for the game I get a message to update Flash Player which has apparently turned out to be a virus (thanks BTN).
3. I get the game going finally and it's incredibly slow and choppy.
4. Switch computers, same slow choppy feed using Mozilla.
5. Switch computers again (to a 3rd), try with Chrome again, can't login.
6. First World Problems.
But in reality, I have to assume an athletic department (even a small one) cannot operate solely on BTN revenue. Which is where programs like OSU, PSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nebraska etc with rabid fan bases and massive stadiums can do so much more than operations like Purdue and Indiana. They're pulling resources from more directions.
EDIT: Also the entire premise of what DJ sort of alludes to is that collegiate athletic departments should operate like professional franchises: spend as much as is required to get a top coach and win games. So Rutgers should be pulling additional millions from the tax-payer supported general university funds to get a better/more expensive head coach?
Still waiting to see some research on overall athletic department budgets and percentage of budget that goes to football. I suspect OSU and other B1G athletic department tend to spread their budget over a greater number of sports than other conferences do (SEC specifically). Are you willing to cut a non-revenue sport here and there to pay a coach?
I can't believe Maisel is on board. That's truly a sign that the 'This Week's Talking Points Memo' made all of its rounds at ESPN.
I think from the BCS decade we know how the majority of teams approach this: schedule 3 or 4 cupcakes. Sure there are a few exceptions, but largely speaking most teams don't want to risk the injuries if it's not required.
So far I really like how the 4-team is shaping up and I'm excited to see how it changes the landscape over the next few years. I'm convinced that we'll see better OOC games in order for teams to build up their resume to get in. With just 4 teams getting in it's guaranteed that 1 of the Power 5 will be left out. That's a beautiful thing because it creates competition. If all you have to do is win your conference to get in then you'll see teams with 4 pathetic OOC games.
Going to an 8 team (5 conference champs, 3 at-large) goes too close to the NFL playoffs - which accepts mediocrity. You could end up with the equivalent of a 9-7 team winning the Super Bowl. I don't want to see a 9-3 or 8-4 team getting into the playoffs just as a I don't really like seeing a 6-6 team get a bowl. This is college football, it's short, sweet and intense. If we drag it out and water it down it won't what we've come to love.
In the current state of the NFL, probably yes. But the NFL and its conception of the QB position is slowly changing (hallelujah). Braxton is far better than Denard as a QB - and dare I say perhaps a more accurate passer than JT. I'd love to see him get a chance on a team that won't try to make him something he isn't (square peg/round hole).
I was initially excited about Maryland and Rutgers. But after having gone to the Maryland game, I've retracted that excitement. The culture there just isn't Big Ten - the same is probably true for Rutgers, but I haven't been there yet. Adding Nebraska was a home run. But I think we should've nabbed Missouri when we had the chance. Ultimately this is all ND's fault, and I hate them for it.
For a long time I supported all of the conference champs getting in but I'm now against it. I believe that what we have right now with the 4-team playoff is ideal in that it is guaranteed that 1 of the 5 power conferences will be left out. That means at an individual level each team wants to have a good resume. What that should translate to is better non-conference scheduling. If you're guaranteed a playoff slot by winning your conference you have no incentive to play a tough non-conference game anymore.
If this year the committee decides to leave Baylor out it may be due to their inferior out of conference games we'll see teams start to finally schedule good OOC games.
Yea, I would think Rich Rod might give Gundy a phone call saying something along the lines of "stay where you are, trust me."
Maybe. Although there is a practiced theory out there that if you go after the big guys you'll scare the small guys back into line.
I don't think there's any reason why they couldn't request a rules change, split into 2 divisions of 5 teams and get a conference championship game. But otherwise yea, they could add Boise State and NDSU. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So my point is that I would prefer if the playoff consisted of only conference champions, but while also maintaining an excellent regular season. The best way I see to do this is with a playoff format that leaves someone out.
I've come around to thinking that the current format of 4 teams is nearly perfect. If you expand to 6 or 8 or something you take the risk of disincentivizing schools from scheduling good non-conference games. Right now with only 4 in the playoff 1 of the Power 5 (&/or ND) will be left out. So to avoid that you don't want to be stuck with, for example, a Virginia Tech loss on your resume (if we'd have had another 1 or 2 Power 5 opponents in non-conference play the focus wouldn't be solely on that VT game). This is why with the current format we're seeing schools begin to improve their schedules. Simply winning your conference won't be enough, because that could still leave you out in the cold.
He's forgetting that FSU could finish with one less, at least they'd then be below us.
I can see Miss State beating Bama. And then I could see Miss State getting destroyed by one of the other playoff teams, TCU, Oregon, OSU...but not FSU.