I think the reason Dantonio seems to always get the pass is that he's a perennial underdog, even when he really shouldn't be. It's the identity of his team, and so I feel like no matter his success at Michigan State, it's like anything above 6-6/7-5 should be something he is applauded for, and if his team is doing really well, 9/10+ wins, and they falter at the end (in a bowl game, for example) then everyone is like "oh, well, they shouldn't even be here."
I wonder if Harrison pulled towards OSU because he knew Washington was coming here?
I'm new to college football fandom, so I'm not sure how realistic that is, but even my little conspiracy aside, he did great things to be able to make it that close of a recruitment in the first place. Makes him a great hire as recruiting is just so critical towards this program's and Day's success.
I'm not sure what coach promises a starting spot to a player, when they are coaching a big-time school. If things turn sour, it also will hurt you moving forward, makes you look weak and desperate, and people are acting like Fields is Aaron Rodgers coming down to play college ball. No kid, however highly rated, is a lock to do well.
Rashan Gary is listed as 247's highest rated prospect. There are huge big-time players up there, but how much has Gary really scared us? He's a very good player, no doubt, but he's not some other-worldly talent, he's no Aaron Darnold or the Bosa brothers.
Of course, the argument will be the quarterbacks are more integral to a team's success. Sure. But, I still don't see the upside of mortgaging your authority and credibility for a kid by promising him a starting spot. What if loses his head? What if he can't adapt? Can Day even afford to put all his chips in on a kid in his first year?
Finally, maybe the environment at Georgia was worse than people are really letting on? I have no inside information, but my sense is maybe there was more than just the one incident of being called the n-word? He might be able to have that one incident, as a documented case that he can use to transfer, but that doesn't mean he hasn't experienced other issues that he doesn't have documentation for. Maybe this younger Black athletes are not going to tolerate fan behavior that abuses them anymore? I would love for them to flex their agency in response like that, and I also think players should be able to transfer like any other student can--if coaches can jump ship, so should players.
The best teams in the 80's and 90's were Italian. They were the best until around 2006, when scandal ripped the league apart.
The funny thing is, college football and European soccer are actually very similar in their dynamics. People rep their respective leagues, argue about which is the best league, and lots of "eye test" and other approaches for comparisons that are usually restricted to theory.
Man Utd has spent on a lot of players. What I see is that Mourinho has ground this team into the trash can. I mean, look at Lukaku, or Alexis Sanchez, or the worst bit: Pogba. Pogba is called overrated, but you put him in a France shirt and suddenly he is a game-changer.
I don't understand people who want Conte to replace Mourinho. He did the same thing at Chelsea, he spent 250 million pounds (sterling) in the year he got 5th place, where Chelsea is still stuck with Morata and his star midfielder (Bakayoko) played like trash before looking like a world-class midfielder at AC Milan in a different environment.
Man Utd has tremendous talent on the roster. The environment is bad, and they need someone to convince their stars to stay. Rumors are that Pogba could go to Juve or Milan in January. Rashford and Martial have been linked with moves, oddly enough to Milan, where Martial has threatened that if things don't change he won't sign the one-year extension option that Man Utd has on his contract.
Zidane did not develop young talent at Real. As much as I love him, he really didn't deserve 2 of those 3 CL, Real really needed ref help. But Zidane's saving grace was that he brought harmony to Real's dressing room, to his credit. He would be a good option, but rumors are that he'd rather take over Juve, and looking at how strong that team is, who blames him? Allegri might be interested in Man Utd, but only in the summer.
However, I think the financial growth of the Italian teams--the return of Inter and Milan--while Juve being the destination for Ronaldo over Man Utd, really shows that EPL's financial might is coming up short. Salah is being rumored to go to Real, not another English team. Ditto with Hazard. Pogba isn't being linked with anyone in England, but Italy. Same with Ibra. It's a worrying development for the EPL, especially with La Liga losing its luster with Ronaldo leaving--and calling Messi to come to Italy.
In other words: the next manager is critical, but I don't see the touted options as wanting to go. Allegri has a better deal at Juve. Zidane seems to prefer Juve's opening to Man Utd's. Conte would be a repeat of Mourinho, so I think Man Utd is really in a bind and I don't see who would work, that's why Solskjaer is being touted as his replacement. Of course, Pochettino would make sense, but has he really done enough to take over Man Utd? He's done about the same as Wenger with similar resources and talent, yet people crap all over Wenger, so is he really that huge of an upgrade?
Who would I pick? Pochettino isn't a bad choice, not at all, but I wonder if Domenico Tedesco could be interested. He's done great at Schalke. The other? Gennaro Gattuso. He's done amazing at Milan, his entire team is injured and he has them in 4th place (he literally is missing 6-7 starters) and has played some really pretty football combined with grit and steel.
Sorry for the length, I became a college football fan in 2014 (when I first arrived in Columbus and married a Buckeye--becoming one) and so I'm out of my depth most of the time here, but soccer is my thing, so I think I became overexcited, lol.
You can cite Tua and Hurts, but you guys forget about Kelly Bryant.
I'm not sure what impact bringing in someone like that has on team morale. I also wonder what impact it will have on recruiting, especially with a new, young coach who doesn't have the record of an Urban, Saban, or Dabo to fall back on to overcome the potential fallout.
This wasn't directed at you, Johnny, I'm new to the forum and I'm trying to figure out the dynamic--just wanted to add to the thread here.
There's no way Notre Dame gets left out. I wish it to be true, truly, but there's no way that happens.
I still don't understand how there are rumblings that if Georgia wins close, that both Alabama and Georgia could go through. Or that even if it is close and Alabama wins, that Georgia could still go through.
It's weird to me. By that logic. Ohio State and Michigan should have both went to the playoffs after 2016.
I have this hope that Clemson loses. I also don't think Notre Dame deserves to be in, honestly. They will go through. 12-0 is nothing to sniff at, but, can anyone really say that Notre Dame is going to give anyone in the top 6 a real game?
I hate those sorts of insults. The incredible academic standards at Stanford haven't prevented them from putting out really good teams, and a far superior institution to Northwestern at that.
That's not to say that there aren't incredibly intelligent athletes--there are plenty and many on the OSU roster currently--but I've always shrugged at insults about the intelligence of players on these teams. Insults about student-fanbases, I can understand that a bit more, but the players?
So if Duke's basketball players decided instead to attend Northwestern, they would turn them down, because unlike Duke's low academics standards (this is sarcasm) Northwestern would say no to Zion? Or had Ben Simmons said he'd want to go to Northwestern, they wouldn't have (if not already do) create academic plans for athletes? Hell, you would have to, even if you did have an Einstein, because playing any varsity-level sport at the collegiate level will most certainly involve you missing classes, needing make-ups, whether you're playing football or squash.
No, that would be logically absurd. We're talking about a show that releases rankings of teams. That show is the exclusive methodology of dissemination of said rankings, which determine who gets to play for a national championship. Considering that narratives are one of the central defining factors in distinguishing between teams, I do not think it is conspiratorial to ask if there is a conflict between one sports network having the rights to said program while also having relationships with other conferences where the value of those relationships could be impacted by the results of the program that they host. It's not like FS1 gets to also reveal the rankings at the same time as ESPN. I mean, they market that exclusivity rather firmly. Saying that there is a conflict does not mean that someone is saying that "the fix is in" or anything like that.
The only thing I disagree with is the idea that ESPN has no impact on the direction or approach of the CFP. The results are released on ESPN, that the CFP has contractual agreements lined up with ESPN to exclusively reveal the rankings on a certain network has to create some conflicts of interest, right?