Unless Sparty's O line plays out of their minds (which they do sometimes) I don't see MSU getting to 20 points except in garbage time.
Right, so if a team does not actually play any players who get a disallowed benefit there would be no NCAA violation. Can't imagine how a state could require a school to play particular players. Also, even if "not prevented by the school," a student athlete couldn't cut their own deal for an image and likeness promotion wearing their uniform or any other school-associated images unless the school itself also agrees to be part of the ad, right? State can't make the school agree to participate in an ad campaign.
So athletes could be kind of limited to ad deals in non-school clothes, which would surely exist (for a select few), but teams who want to remain NCAA eligible would just have to not play them. And if so, not sure why they'd be required to maintain their scholarships.
You know how mid major programs, many of which have delusional dreams of joining the elite someday, never can make the jump because as soon as they get a really good coach who can take them there he's quickly hired away by the already established elite program? We all know those programs are just stepping stones for the best coaches and never will not be. Looking like the Transfer Portal, together with the NCAA's very lenient transfer waiver process, is starting to do the same thing to their players as well. Houston and others like them are now just farm teams not only for coaching talent, but high-end players as well.
Is this good for the players? Sure, for those who get the chance to play up. But as with the coaching moves, not so great for their teammates.
The O-line's ability to make the run game go now has be really impressive. Last year seemed it was hard for RBs to find a hole, even against lesser teams. I get that Fields' run skills have made a difference, but he hasn't optioned to run very much so far - hasn't needed to. Would love to see a "film study" comparing last year to this year. The impact is huge for this team, and seems more to that story than a mobile QB.
Agree, although the Bucks looked very dialed in for Cincy. It was clear the staff and players knew Luke's team was a legit threat and brought their A game. Very little to criticize on film day this week. Might their play against Indiana be a little less focused and sloppy? Doesn't mean we lose, just that its hard to bring that edge every week.
How about a poll asking what other coach's text history we most like to see? Got to think a Bielema text dump would be highly entertaining.
Hmm, I wonder about that. I suspect Tom would be have been far more willing to torpedo Zach the minute he became Nick's guy. Also, the key event was Zach action that lead to her filing the complaint - perhaps something that doesn't happen if he's not in Columbus much. But feels like it was a powder keg that was going to blow eventually and it would still not play well for Urban. Though would have been fun to hear Nick try to defend his due diligence.
If the payments are limited to something for the just use of names, number, and likenesses one could see a deal allowing that. That aspects has always seemed to have the best argument going for it - i.e, not paying for their play technically, but for their likeness. Could a school right now legally use the likeness of any other kind of celebrity student without paying them? But everyone in the NCAA would have to sign on for the same deal or there would be huge recruiting advantages created. Even if you could reach a deal on that, the strong programs would walk away even further from the small ones.
Have to agree with Emmert that if states go on their own about this, they are the ones leaving the NCAA. There can really be no way you allow schools in certain states to do it and not others. The only deal that works is an NCAA wide one. And even then, its a slippery slope to the end of college football.
Welp, if things don’t quite work out he’ll always have those elementary PE memories to look back on. So guess he’s got that going for him.
Nowadays you don’t have to try to run up the score to run it up. Just play your offense well and then, “...well will ya look at that it’s 59-0, wow they was fast.”
This one will feel close and we could still win by 28.
Yes, but if we can blow them out it helps in a different way. Makes it look like we’re now open play-off material. Oklahoma did not look like that against WV.
But a close win over NW and Tx losing puts us in Rose Bowl.
Likely committee needs to see us play like that again before buying in. Tx bearing them again would help - and they could.
By like 10 yard
Agree that media reaction/hurt feelings is not a good reason for punishment. But I like the idea of Urban holding himself to a higher standard and willing to take some lumps for not performing to a standard he said he has set for himself. It's frankly the right life message to his players. That said, the past 3 weeks of embarrassment and abuse taking he's taken seems sufficient.
Word of some kind may start leaking even before Wednesday. And after that BoT meeting, wouldn't be surprised if "key findings" start leaking - they seem to always do by someone prior to any decision and statement going public.
If the Big 10 media day thing is the only negative on Urban, I think an apology is sufficient. I suspect Urban did what was right based upon what he knew at the time (which happen to be right in the middle of the frickin season), but everyone at OSU got blindsided by the new disclosures. Considering the much wider range of observations about "what happened" revealed over just the past week from key principals, its actually a good sign that Drake wants to assure the "context" of decisions made back then is well understood.
Ultimately everyone's fate will hinge on 1) exactly what info did Urban, Gene, and others at OSU have at the time about the 2015 incident, 2) did they investigate sufficiently to believe ZS hadn't violated any policy AND wasn't a danger to anyone (including himself), and 3) did they make a reasonable judgment call to keep him on based on all that?
Urban is getting roasted because his, at best, evasive answers made it look like he has something to hide. Urban claims he didn't want to air the messy personal details of a what we now know was a toxic marriage. That is very plausible, but the original question still hangs out there - what due diligence did Urban and the rest of OSU do in 2015 when there appears to have at least been a claim of pretty disturbing behavior by a coach.
Its not that they should - or even could - have fired him solely because serious claims were made against him. But we need to hear why Urban and Gene made the decisions they made. If their efforts and decisions were reasonable (not necessarily perfect), then OSU should stand by them.
I have no problem with him lying to the media per se, but how in the world did OSU not prepare him to answer those questions? We all were expecting those questions the minute the 2015 news broke. And while glad he did report the matter, the question is still sitting out there - why wasn't Smith fired back then, when a restraining order is all it took to fire him now? I expect the University wasn't prepared to answer why Smith still was employed.
Right, this is the key question. We don't know exactly what Shelly was told (or understood), nor what she relayed to Urban about it. I expect there will be lots of gray area in what was communicated and thought by them both. I have a hard time believing Urban would just blow this off if he knew all about it, or that he'd just casually lie regarding knowing about it. But assuming the texts are genuine, Shelly sure heard enough to be worried about it, so I'd also be surprised if she said nothing. Exactly what looks like the key issue here.
Press might be more interested in asking every assistant coach what they and their spouses knew and when they knew it.
Making a good point, and raising an interesting legal question about Title 9. If the spouse of a university official has knowledge of abuse and does not pass it on to the university, including her spouse - maybe to protect Urban, or maybe intending to protect the victim from losing her income just as she is about to become a single mother- is that still a violation?
Ultimately we'd sure all like to hear from both Shelly and Urban on this. And I'd sure like to hear from all the coaching staff and their spouses as well. Perhaps an enterprising 11w journalist could get some interviews? I've been impressed with 11w reporting on all this - its the primary source I trust.
Question for anyone who knows: when was all this "sealed" stuff first unsealed and by whom? Was that her decision after requesting the recent protective order, or a court action? Was all this info under protective order until just recently? Thanks
Woodson may be precisely wrong. In recent years UM has played way better against us than virtually anyone else on their schedule. They spend large portions of their season sucking but somehow put it together when playing us - not every time, but a lot recently. Their kids get it and they do make the extra effort. They just still can't win.
No Vrable? Hmm, maybe he's already familiar with what we have.
So what has been the actual BB attendance difference between the Schott and when it was at StJ's? Anyone have numbers?