I think LSU beats Bama. Bama's D is soft this year. I also think LSU may lose along the way. Their D isn't spectacular, but they do seem to be opportunistic. I believe this is the year no SEC team makes it through unscathed. Watching all the top SEC teams play so far, as well as Oklahoma, Clemson, and the Bucks, I think it's pretty clear the 2 best teams are Ohio State and Oklahoma. After that, there are 4 or 5 times I could say are all about the same.
I have yet to see anything out of Texas to make me think they are "close" to winning anything.
Of course, but I'm talking specifically about the 2 schools that he actually cemented himself as an all time great and spent more than 2 seasons at.
The rise and fall of Urban and his teams is pretty predictable. There my have been different reasons, but his tenures at Ohio State and Florida were similar. He'll coach again and it'll happen again wherever he goes. Great beginning where hope is restored, tremendous success, a controversy that ends with a health scare and retirement. I'm not knocking the guy. He is a maniac and that's why he's so successful, that's also why he flames out so bad.
I don't know if Day is better, worse, or the best ever. I also don't really buy into the "chip in the shoulder" motivation tactics all that much. He has an extremely talented group, and has them focused and free of distraction. That, to me, is what Urban has trouble with. He just can't keep his teams free of distraction.
I think Ohio State's destruction of UC is going to look like a pretty damn good win by the end of the year. UC is good and getting better. The jury is still out, for me, on how good UCF is though. I thought Pitt might be decent, but they got handled pretty well by Virginia so I'm not so sure.
I 100% believe Urban will coach again and it will come soon. I 100% don't care if he does coach again because I don't think he will impact the Buckeyes at all. Day is proving to be an elite coach, he will have his own track record of success to sell the recruits. I really just think Urban coaching at all has no bearing on Ohio State. I appreciate his time here, and the work that was done while he was here. If he wants to go win a 4th title at USC or Notre Dame then good luck, and I hope we can go all Clemson on him!
I think they lose to Iowa, ND, Penn State, and us. Jimmy will leave, and none of their guys will play in the bowl game and they'll lose to Kentucky in the Gator bowl or some bullshit like that.
That, to me, is the most impressive thing about last night. Nebraska's house was definitely the most intimidating venue we've seen so far, and the team didn't miss a beat. This is a really good team.
This game was impressive, but I'm still not sure Nebraska is better than IU. I like that it was by far the most hostile environment the Buckeyes have played in, and the team didn't miss a beat. It was clear from the get go last night that Day and company knew they were going to be able to pound the ball on Nebraska's D, and my goodness were they right. The holes the O-Line blew open were impressive. They are also opening up the play book more and more each week. There were a couple of designed runs for Fields that I haven't noticed so far, and they were called at the perfect time. There was a run around the edge that Herbie broke down, the long run for fields, it was a perfect call.
Fields, and this team keep getting better. This team has the potential to be legendary.
Are there no good games this weekend? Really surprised this is a game day game.
I don't know why anyone thinks Nebraksa will be more of a challenge than IU or UC. They have done NOTHING this year to show they would keep this game close at any point or that they'd be able to score 21 points. I think the final is 56-10.
I think Iowa is more likely to beat TTUN than MSU.
I agree with this take completely. That is at least a 4 loss team. They'll lose at 2 of the Iowa, Penn State, and ND games. One of MSU or Maryland could give them a game. Then there's THE GAME. Side note, though, Pitt at Halftime is making Penn State look like a pretty good team. UCF has been really good to start the year.
He gets angry like Herbie when someone disagrees lol.
With a much tougher stretch of games coming up on the schedule, starting with Nebraska as they resume Big Ten play next week,
I get that tougher games will be coming in conference play, but what suggests Nebraska is actually going to be a step up from UC or IU? Lost to Colorado (who lost to Air Force) and struggled with South Alabama. I know Nebraska was hyped coming into the season and it's a road game, but I just don't see what Nebraska has done on the field this year which leads people to think this will be that challenging of a game.
A team Buckeyes beat by 42, beat this team by 22. What should the point spread be? Bama is a 38 - 38 1/2 favorite tomorrow against Southern Miss.
I just have a feeling this ND team ends up losing. They just aren't that good. UofL wasn't dominated by the Irish they just kept dropping the damn ball. I was at the New Mexico game. New Mexico is freaking terrible, but they were have A LOT of success moving the ball when they ran the ball right up the middle on ND. Their QB was just awful. There is a big difference between the dominance the Buckeyes have had the last 2 weeks and the 66 points ND put up on New Mexico. All 3 teams we've played so far would beat New Mexico and by multiple scores.
The point of all my rambling is, if by some miracle ND pulls off the victory this weekend, they won't go undefeated the rest of the way. I'm betting they lose to USC, but possibly someone shitty like Navy.
So I went to Notre Dame for the game over the weekend and I have to say, I liked it. I found a lot of their fans to be pretty reasonable about their team and coach. I'm no ND fan by any stretch. I did really like their campus a lot. I loved going to the Grotto, seeing Trumpets under the Dome, we walked down the tunnel to get at field level and take some pictures, and watching the team walk into the stadium was really cool too. I enjoyed their band, and our seats in the stadium were pretty good for 2nd deck. The seem to have a really big student section which made the game pretty loud. The tailgate was fun, and it was impressive, not Columbus on game day impressive, but I think it was better there than other stadiums I have been.
Honestly, I didn't care so much about the game, because I have no vested interest in Notre Dame. New Mexico was terrible, like really bad. They actually had opportunities to move the ball, they had open receivers at times, but their QB was terrible, I mean awful. Their fans over reacted a good bit to the 66 points. Watching the Buckeyes, and seeing both teams live, there is a HUGE difference between the speed and athletes that Ohio State has compared to Notre Dame. I agree with a commenter above, Notre Dame wouldn't come within 10 points of the Bucks this year. Georgia will beat them by 2 TDs at least.
I would probably rather seen Notre Dame win this game, as I think they'll lose a couple of games this year anyway.
2017 had 2 losses. One was a blowout to an unranked team, and the other Oklahoma won pretty easily. So, yeah, I get why a 1 loss Bama team made it in over the conference champ Buckeyes.
2018 we were DOMINATED by a shit team. We didn't lose a flukey game on the road, we got dominated by a bad team. Lump that in with close wins to other inferior teams like IU and Maryland and it makes sense we didn't get in.
Hey Slim, Fuck you and your picture!!!!!!!!!! O'Doyle Rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
I think people often forget how bad some of our teams have looked against inferior talent. Tressel's teams had a couple close calls to far inferior teams and had many lackluster games. Is this UC team worse than Purdue last year? I really don't know that I can confidently say yes. 2015, one of the most loaded rosters we've ever seen struggled with Northern Illinois. Anyway, bottom line is, the first 2 weeks have been extremely dominant, and the team seems to be getting better. This could be a special season. We've played 2 bad teams, but we've dominated pretty well. We're about to play another one, hopefully we can take another step forward.
I would also add, though, that your financial situation is your own and unique from anyone else's, so with the little surface information we have about you from this post, NO ONE commenting here has the information needed or authority to give you any actual guidance. Nowadays, though, if you have a 401k provide already, they probably can provide you a discussion for free to help you what decisions to make and what debt to pay etc. I would always recommend talking to someone who is actually qualified over random posters on a football blog.
I once had a guy who called for help, we talked over his situation, I made a suggestion and he just and he just disregarded it. His portfolio was a mess. I asked how he came up with the mix he had. He said my brother told me to do it this way. I said nice, what firm does your brother work for? He said, what do you mean? I said well your brother must be an advisor or professional right? He said no, he's an electrician. I said oh ok, so you feel like he's qualified for this? He said oh yeah he has a 401k, has a ton of money saved. I said awesome, glad to hear it. So let me ask you this, if you decided you wanted to rewire your house or put a new load center in, would you call me, a financial advisor to give you instructions? He said no why would I do that? I said I don't know why are you taking retirement planning advice from an electrician? He laughed and said good point.
The firm who runs your 401k, isn't making money off of the changes you make within the 401k. If they are giving you suggestions, it's because it's in your best interest. It has to be. Huge companies like Apple, ATT, Microsoft etc pay a lot of money to a firm for that firm to take care of their participants. They expect the people to get service and actual guidance, not a sales pitch. Now when they try to get you to move your money out of the employer plan and into an IRA, that's where the sales pitch and firm's products come into play. So many people call to talk about their 401ks with their providers and act like the firm is an adversary. It's not.
I disagree that it's "that easy". If you aren't regularly rebalancing your portfolio and let it ride for decades you could be in taking on too much risk at an older age or not enough risk if the market has been slow.
If people are set on index funds, one nice/newer feature some 401ks have are Target Date Index funds. So you have a fund that rebalances itself and gives you the lower expense ratios.
My whole point has been, not many people are qualified to handle the stuff on their own, they do take advice from people who aren't qualified to give them advice, and I just hate the absolutes people use like INDEX FUNDS ARE ALWAYS THE WAY TO GO. It's just not always true.
I say build an emergency savings up with about 3-6 months worth of expenses.
THEN if you have a 401k, try to contribute at least to what your company matches (if they match)
If you have high interest debt, pay it down as quickly as you can
Student loan debt, depending on the interest rate, isn't necessarily bad debt, but if you can pay it off in a short period of time, then that gives you a lot of free cash to sock away.
It drives me crazy when people talk about how cheap Vanguard is or start talking about only index funds. First, Vanguard doesn't have the lowest expenses or cost. Fidelity and Schwab have a better IRA offering and platform. Fidelity has zero expense Index funds. No expense ratio at all. They also have a large offering of commission free ETFs with extremely low expense ratios. At the end of the day, though, Index Funds and ETFs aren't always the best game in town. Managed Funds can still give great returns, AND when the market is taking a dump, the fund managers move assets of the fund around and shelter the fund from some of the volatility. When you look at fund returns, and the funds show the YTD, 1 year, 3 year, 5 year, and 10 year returns, remember those returns are net expenses.
So, I'd ask you this. Do you really care what the expense ratio is on a fund like the Fidelity Contrafund, when it's 10 year average return is 14.44% per year. Compared to a very low expense ratio fund liked the Fidelity 500 (S&P 500 Index fund) has averaged 13.43% per year in that same time? So many people hear index fund, and automatically think well it has to be better it's cheaper. It's not always better.