I would mostly with this... I think the Big ten has a shot being 3rd or 4th, but not number 2. If we are hanging our hat on IA, PSU and NE to make us stronger at the top, that's a bit too much for me to believe. Those are wildly vacillating programs year-to-year. We have two programs guaranteed to be good: us and Mich St. Everyone else is a crapshoot. The B12 and PAC whatever are likely stronger. I hope I'm wrong, but recent history says we're above the AAC and maybe the ACC.
Two things: the game was a microcosm of the season. Inconsistent play all around, even from the seniors. But, the people criticizing Matta are crazy. Yes, we list sienna a few years ago and yes we lost today. But how many times has he led us to the sweet 16 and beyond? Only 16 of 300 plus teams can get that far and he's done it more than once. This is the longest period of consistent success this program has had. We usually make the tourney and usually win a couple games or more. It's hard to win a title. Think Dean smith and Roy Williams and Boeheim before they finally got it done. Matta is the right man for the job.
It's a good team that will likely lose to Duke. If they get past Duke, they definitely fall in my mind. A good year considering the best pro prospect is out and they started slow. Line most, I'm obviously more concerned with my bucks, but those complaining about an article re: Michigan must have become bucks fans relatively recently. Most of us are usually interested in what's happening up north. It's the nature of the rivalry. If you don't care about what's happening at/with Michigan, you must be john cooper 's kids. He didn't care much either.
While I know it's very difficult to cull the field down to this number, I cannot fathom how every president isn't included in the politics bracket. We have more than any other state and, in politics, is there a higher ceiling? My only beef with the list. Although I think Fraze and Patterson should have made the science/business bracket as well.
My two cents: grant needs to take it home. We may not have an America we know without his appointment by Lincoln. And, he did it drunk!
I agree that this could be a toothpaste back into the tube issue and everyone must be careful. But, given the lack of specifics, I'm withholding judgment until there is any indication as to what is the end game. Is it to simply provide those conferences with a greater say within the existing structure? Like the UN's security council? Or, are we talking about a split altogether from smaller schools? I do like the idea of no more Mac schools on the schedule, but I also don't want to see the Ohio U and Akron's of the world lose their programs. I know those two wishes may not be compatible, though.
You certainly make some fair points re: the uncertainty as to true market values, and I'll absolutely defer to economists in that respect (that ain't my bailiwick ). There are constraints as well, undoubtedly. However, acknowledging these facts is a far cry from agreeing that these kids are woefully under compensated, abused, etc as many say here and elsewhere. How far off us it? I don't know. My gut sense us that these kids are given a lot to work out and play football. No one prevents them from doing something else. The market us only restricted because of inertia. Want something else? What is prohibiting that? Honestly. I am actually asking. What is the response of proponents?
Allow me to preface this with an acknowledgement if the appreciation that people can actually have a civil debate on the internet. But, I disagree. First, your argument that what the players are being compensated is not fair begs the question. You are arbitrarily deciding it's not fair. Based on what criteria? Your response is exactly what I stated: they make a bunch, therefore it's unfair. Go back and look at your argument. It makes no sense. Coaches are paid more than their fair share, really? What do you base that upon? You also argue that "those that capitalize are earning more than their fair share" Again, you are arbitrarily determining that without any single shred of evidence. What is your criteria for that? What is the appropriate value of a college coach? A school? You must have a number already, given that you have already determined it's unfair and out of whack? I would like to see your numbers in your response.
Secondly, I understand your argument perfectly. And in fact, your response only proved my point. Look at your response. It is exactly what I claimed. What you fail to do is explain why college athletes are worth more than they are already compensated. Where is the evidence of "fair market share." How are you possibly quantifying it. I'll tell you how I view market worth: when people stop applying for positions at the compensation you are offering. Tell me, how many schools are having a hard time filling their classes due to players feeling under-compensated? I'll wait for the answer, although I suspect none.
Lastly, although I slept through the Sherman anti trust stuff (I'm a criminal guy) the NCAA is not a monopoly (notwithstanding your bald, patronizing assertion). There are other governing bodies of collegiate athletics. Hell, kids can play intramural sports if they wish. How in the world is the NCAA monopoly?
You say that without the NCAA there would be some pre-nfl league. Okay. And without Coca cola, I would dominate the soft drink market too. But guess what, there us a coca cola and there is an NCAA. You are free to start this league if you wish. Go for it. I have a feeling, though, that no one wants to see a 20 year old kid play football unless it is for a school they root for. The market dictates that. What had the NCAA done to prevent these upstart leagues. I'll be awaiting your response with examples if how the NCAA has affirmatively prevented these leagues..., because as you state "without the NCAA"they would exist.
You were really offended by the notion that parents might be able to pay? Really? You are that easily offended? How about student loans? Why is that so terrible for these guys? I've yet to hear a single cogent argument why they can't take out loans like almost anyone else.
Look, the great divide here seems to be that some of us don't believe that athletes "deserve" a certain amount of money simply because (and only because) "schools are bringing in billions of dollars." That is how the arguments start for 99% of the proponents of paying athletes. If schools lost money, would you still be arguing they need to be paid? Of course not. Proponents of paying players, above and beyond what they are already compensated, are really arguing that those that capitalized on something inherently owe others. Simple as that. It's a philosophical difference that I think is often understated in these debates. Admit it proponents: you think because the universities "have," they should be required to give more than they currently do. And, what they currently give is pretty substantial. No matter how much you down Play the value these kids receive, it is substantial.
almost no single person, playing any particular sport, is inherently valuable to a school. They are fungible for the most part, even Heisman winners. Do you want to know the reason people watch any particular player? I'll let you in on a secret: they wear the jersey of their school or their state school they grew up rooting for. These kids have almost no inherent, individualized value.
To prove this, let's engage in an exercise: imagine there was an opt -out provision. Kids could decide to not accept any benefits, be required to pay tuition, rent, etc. in exchange for the ability to go sell their likeness and make money on the open market. Okay, you'd have an occasional Pryor doing tat or car commercials (or hell, even Nike maybe). But, what do you suppose the vast majority of athletes would choose? My guess is to take free tuition, free room, free meals. Likely 99% or more would. Where is the inherent value of these guys? There is none. They did nothing to create the great wealth, you and I did as consumers.
Oh, and has previously been stated, no one makes them enter into this agreement. No one! Unfair? Do something else.
Oh, I wanted to also say that the fact they are starting a new network isn't enough. How are they making more money now? In the short term? In the long term? Saying it is so does not make it so. I would like to see the concrete steps that leads espn to vast riches by making people say false statements on tv. It's a huge assumption and if anyone us going to make the claim, they should have to back it up. Again, I don't deny a bias, but I feel it's not some concerted effort from higher ups and more likely what these people believe.
Please show a direct line from the sec being propped up to espn making more money. Where is it in their financial interest to overinflate that conference when, as has been pointed out, the big ten has deals with espn, and viewership in the big ten conference is enormous as well. I truly believe that there is a bias on the part of the analysts, but it's way too much of a stretch to say that it is not simply a personal bias. Why can't the answer be the simplest one? When you hear foot steps, don't assume it's a zebra. You say follow the money, but have no roadmap as to how this vast conspiracy where all the analyst are held hostage to a narrative makes espn more money.
I love BM and am glad he is our QB, but he is not the most outstanding player in the country. Sorry, he doesn't deserve the Heisman. Maybe next year he will be a candidate, but not this year. Numbers are certainly important, but its not simply a matter of numbers. I've seen lots of football and I plainly don't believe he is the MOP. In fact, he is the second MOP on his own team
My take is similar to others here: the defense has problems for sure, but the sky isn't falling either. I'm at total peace with us being left out. The system played in our favor many, many times while it has been in place. If we get "screwed" in the last year, we'll get over it. Let's try and win the rose bowl, not send 2 big ten teams to the BCS and try and help the league's image this season. It, and enjoy not having lost in two years
Just run the clock out and get outta here with a win. I'm disappointed, but not angry that the defense still can't stop a competent passer. I don't blame voters for believing others are better, when I honestly think about it. We are still better than almost anyone, just not NC caliber yet.
I think you are mostly right in that we need things to happen this year, but if we do go undefeated (hardly guaranteed) the odds are heavily in favor that we go. It's just not very often that there are 3 or more undefeated teams in a given year. Plus, although we are needing help, OSU still carries cache nationally among voters, as evidenced by our ranking with only one quality win thus far.
Cue the, "we're getting no respect" chatter in 3...2...1.
Even though we are still ranked 3/4.
The best part of the analysis is that he can "run with his feet." I'm sure fans are happy to know that he at least has that part of mechanics down. Last thing Hoke needs is to get him to stop running with his hands or elbows.
Edit: I'm just teasing, of course.
I agree. And these things almost always work itself out. In the entire era of the BCS, I can only think of one time that there were three teams undefeated in power conferences... The big east (cincy) doesn't count. If we do t lose, history is on our side that we play for it all. And if we're not "picked", why would the voters be wrong? It's a vote and people have the right to hold their opinion. Who are we going to beat that's on the level if a GA, a Stanford? Also, since when is it an insult to be ranked 3/4? It's not like we're not getting any respect
I don't have a problem with our ranking. If we go undefeated, there's an 80 percent chance (totally scientific) we go to play the SEC for the title. And, if we get left out, we can't blame anyone but ourselves for the ridiculous schedule. Where's the Texas, USC, anyone? I know we we're supposed to play Vandy, but come on, if that was supposed to be our quality opponent, along with Cal? Well, we can't really complain. Just come back the next year with a senior Braxton and go for it again
I have thought for a while that at least 1 or 2 RBs transfer. I can't really blame them. Although we lose both Hyde and hall after this next year, there's still too many quality starters on the team for everyone to remain happy. As for the redshirts, it just goes to show that no matter how ballyhooed a recruit is, it's an uphill battle for freshman to really contribute in a significant way. That's why I always laugh when people expect freshman to fill a void on the team.
That was as exciting a game as one could ask for in this non-conference season. Kenny, Hall, The O-line and the wideouts played outstanding. The defense, not so much. Now, don't get me wrong, I understand Cal is going to score on lots of teams, but there is no way this team is winning a national title with this defense. Still can't tackle in the secondary on a consistent basis. We can still win the BIG and a BCS game, but imagine having to face Oregon or Clemson, or hell, even Bama or LSU with this D right now.
I'm happy with the direction of the team and excited for another successful year, but I think we are still one year from truly being a title contender
Tenn does actually leave the south to play games. They are just about the only SEC team that has historically and somewhat regularly done so. I remember they went to ND not long ago and we actually had a home and home scheduled with them, but them it fell through. So, props to them for trying to get a game in Ohio. And they are rebuilding, so yesterday is not that much of a surprise. With that said... Wow,Oregon is good. They deserve the ranking as if now based upon what I have seen. Our defense isn't national championship caliber (yet). While I'm not sure we should have dropped, Oregon looks like a complete team again.
That is what I didn't understand at all ... I didn't think the kid got the first down, personally, but why didn't they put time back on the damn clock??
Is this a serious post, or are you that stupid?
Who cares? Seriously? It's early. If OSU wins out, we are in, I believe. If not, then it's because the voters don't feel we should be and that is also acceptable ... It's the system we have and love as part of college football. Personally, I would not vote our bucks number 2 or worry about our Bucks being number 2 based upon what I have seen so far. Will that change? Maybe, but that is why they play the rest of the damn year folks!