If we're being fair, we probably would've gotten the same response if it was OSU's fight song. Sports and Jeopardy contestants don't like each other.
Looks like Herbie has corrupted someone else...
so the guy who's arguably the face of college football on the media side saying he'll be shocked if the season isn't cancelled is... irresponsible.
How is what he said irresponsible, in any way whatsoever? Have you looked around lately? Have you listened to medical professionals talk about how long THEY think the quarantine should last and what should be allowed when it finally is lifted. What he said wasn't out of line or outrageous at all. It sure sounds like the real issue here is that someone you don't like told you something you don't WANT to hear.
Who's Treyveyon Henderson? Does he play Lacrosse?
Cocaine and strippers
You think upvotes/downvotes are a perfect measure of the quality of a comment? How long have you been around here?
Who says a little nepotism can't get you a cushy job?
Come on, we need to think before posting stuff like this. How is this any different than Corey Dennis?
Edit - I'm NOT saying Dennis got the job because of who he is, only that the appearance is the same. It's not like the Harbaugh family tree doesn't produce coaches.
I don't mind "that school up north" but scUM drives me absolutely insane...it just sounds childish.
Also, mocking Michigan sports is fine but some people take things too far and wish failure upon anyone who simply went to school there.
Purdue and Iowa don't recruit on our level either, and they both smoked us in back to back years. UM has way better players than both schools so no, this isn't a terrible take. Have you forgotten the 90's? The better team doesn't always win, especially in rivalry games. Would I predict a UM win any time soon? No, but I wouldn't be shocked at an upset either.
Why would the committee even get involved? There is no "rule" that says you have to play 9 conference games...the B1G, B12, and Pac-12 all CHOOSE to play 9 games because they make more money than paying some lower tier team to come get beat by 40 points. It's short sighted and the ACC and SEC have realized this. Sometimes you have to adapt rather than be stubborn.
.lets see how stubborn they will be even at the detriment of the conference ....
Agree. I'm not sure why people are downvoting this opinion. It's true, it's nothing but stubbornness and doesn't provide any real benefit in today's landscape.
Agreed. I see a lot of people saying the SEC and ACC need to play by the same rules. Well, there aren't any rules here...the B1G CHOSE to play nine conference games. We don't have to do this. To me, it's stubborn and stupid and puts us behind the 8-ball from the get go. Sometimes you have to adapt, and right now playing 8 conference games provides the path of less resistance to the CFP.
It's just the way it works out sometimes. Scheduling is very complex and sometimes you can't avoid scenarios like this as it has a ripple effect on everyone else. Either way, if you look at prior years, MOST years we play a cupcake before playing UM. Every now and then we'll get stuck playing MSU or PSU before UM, but most years we play the like of MD, IU, Ill, etc. As far as the SEC goes, they're running into issues this year with Bama and Auburn...Bama plays A&M the week before while Auburn plays LSU. It happens.
Are they supposed to show us favoritism?
Wilson is going to be a beast just needs more opportunities.
Agree 100%, just pointing out that that doesn't show in the formula.
Olave you can make a case, but Wilson, from a stats perspective, is an unknown. Plus, we lose the best RB in the country in Dobbins.
I think what's helping Bama is that Jones was able to play a large chunk of the year so losing Tua hurts less in the formula.
Yea, but some of those are going to be long shots. I think the point the other poster was making was that you can't throw in long shots and then say it's a "conservative" guess.
Do they deserve to be punished? Sadly no.
Soooo, a woman can knowingly falsely accuse a man of rape, have his life ruined, and NOT be punished? Surely you must be kidding?
Then when they come forward "Let's let the facts play out" is a veiled attempt to say "I don't believe her".
I call BS on that. That is 1000000000% NOT what I'm saying, and if you read through the vast majority of comments here today, it's not what others are saying either. Do you really not see how dangerous that is to publicly RUIN someone's life when he hasn't even had his day in court? It happens(false accusations) but the anger should be directed at those who MAKE the false accusations and cause "doubt" to be cast on those who make legitimate accusations.
Combine that with the fact that if this happens to another team or school we are ready to convict but when its 'our boys' we have to wait for all of the facts before we make up our minds!
Again, read the comments today. It's quite one sided in calling for them to be kicked off the team.
And for the record, my opinion on this has NOTHING to do with OSU football.
Brewster - I think you're running with the opinions(protect our football bros) of the VERY few and lumping everyone else into it. If you look through this thread, the overwhelming majority of people are disgusted and want them gone. But, just like every other time this topic comes up, the sub topic of "is this real" comes up. While you may disagree, and cite sources that only take into account PROVEN instances of false accusations, it's not a bad take to question why the masses think it's ok to automatically side with the accuser. I don't care if the statistics say it's 9 out of 10 or 6 out of 10, I sure as hell wouldn't want my son to be on the other side of that statistic(nor would I want my daughter as well). Just because many have this opinion, it doesn't mean we don't believe the woman or think that the man should be punished severely, it's just that we want to have the legal process play out before destroying any more lives. Why is that so wrong?
This would be compelling evidence of exactly why not to rush to judgement.
The problem (one of many) is that some people are confusing those who are calling for restraint in judgement with those who disregard the woman's story, victim blame, etc.
Agreed, far too often people conflate wanting to let the process play out/hear all the facts with victim shaming.
Statistically, 9.0-9.3 times out of ten it is true.
But how do we know this is even accurate? What about the times we don't have proof the accusation was false and the man was sentenced for a crime he didn't commit? That figure only takes into account the instances where the woman admitted she made it up.
You put that up against another running quarterback (when he wasn't injured), who's taller and had a 40 - 2 (or 3), last one wasn't his fault) TD to interception ratio. What are you seeing that you think Tathan is better?
Well, you're using Fields stats AFTER the fact....before we knew anything about him. Remember, this thread was created BEFORE the season. I based MY opinion, BEFORE the season, off what I saw from watching Tate play in mop up duty vs what I saw from Fields highlights in mop up duty at GA. Knowing what we know now, it sounds silly. But we didn't know ANYTHING about Fields, so it wasn't completely unreasonable to have that opinion.
Eating a nice crow sandwich right now...
I also noticed that he conflates the number of downloads with the number of individual listeners, which is wildly misleading
I did notice that while I was still listening. He would always give the "running tally" of downloads when the key stat would be how many unique weekly, or per episode, downloads