Official (2015-2016) College Football Thread OSU#1

Finally LSU gets exposed.

Oregon vs. Auburn (hopefully) for all the marbles is going to be one hell of a game if both win next week. 2 undefeated teams from great conferences (SEC and Pac 10), Heiman Trophy winner and runner-up (Newton, James), and 2 great and exciting offenses.

The game will be won with defense (surprisingly) and special teams. Auburn has a good rushing defense, but a terrible passing defense. Oregon has a decent rushing defense, but is very suspect against the pass. Oregon gets the edge on special teams however.

It's gonna be a doozy.

That said, both need to take care of business next week (Oregon @ Oregon State and Auburn vs. South Carolina in Atlanta).
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']NCSU choked again. Every fucking time they look legit they let me down. Hopefully they win their bowl game.[/QUOTE]

Sorry for your loss but it was my gain. Now I get to watch my team (FSU) in the ACC Championship (bought tix a while back). Also, F those Gaters.
 
[quote name='Nate Nanjo']So with Miami firing Randy Shannon, who else do you see getting fired this season?[/QUOTE]

I want to say Rich Rodriguez, although Darren Rovell says if they wait until Jan 1 to can him they save $1.5 million
 
Too many schools are quick to fire good coaches. Shannon was one of those guys. He had a winning record since taking over a program that was in shambles when it was handed over to him. In addition, he took what use to be a bunch of thugs and cleaned them up. Miami will learn that the grass isn't greener on the other side. Ask Tennessee how the firing of Phil Fulmer has been working for them. ;)
 
Not sure I like TCU joining the Big East, if for no other reason than I'm bored watching WVU play in that league and hope it falls apart.
 
Interesting how the Big 12 didn't try to pick up TCU considering how they need to get back up to 12 teams.

Boise State gets the short end of the stick again as BYU, Utah, and TCU have left the MWC and those are arguably the 3 best teams in that conference.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Too many schools are quick to fire good coaches.[/QUOTE]


It's unfortunate, but it happens. I thought the same of Mike Shula a few years ago at Alabama but apparently if you don't get results in the first year or two, it's out on the streets.

Besides if they're a good enough coach they should be able to find a job at another school.
 
[quote name='MasterSun1']Ted Miller hits it right on the head:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_/id/16517/sort/oldest/why-stanford-is-better-than-your-team

Granted he's the Pac-10 blogger for ESPN, but at least he raises valid points.[/QUOTE]

His posts is terrible. Before I start my analysis of his post, I want to state I think Stanford is a good team. Now onto some of Ted Miller's laughable quotes...

Stanford is 11-1 playing against the nation's eighth toughest schedule in the nation's toughest conference, according to the highly respected Sagarin Ratings.
Click to expand...

:rofl::rofl::rofl: Far from it. Let's review last year's bowl season 2 wins, 5 losses. Yeah that's the toughest conference... :lol:

The Pac-10 plays nine conference games, which no other conference does. That means five more defeats are guaranteed to be scattered throughout the conference every season, thereby making it a mathematical fact that it's more difficult to become bowl eligible in the Pac-10 than any other conference.
Click to expand...

Math doesn't take into fact how good the teams in the conference are. When two schools in the Pac 10 should really be in FCS, it doesn't matter. Washington St hasn't been competitive... well, ever. Washington has had winless seasons. Beating these two FCS schools each year doesn't make that more difficult to become bowl eligible as these are pretty much autowins. More BS about it being harder to be bowl eligible... Pac 10 sent in 7 teams last year, which is the same or more, than the Big 10, ACC, and Big East. Luckily, this crappy excuse is gone next year with the addition of 2 teams. ;)

The Pac-10 plays the most challenging nonconference schedule among the BCS conferences. Not only has it played six top-17 teams in the current BCS standings, it played five of them all on the road. And that list doesn't include Iowa, Texas, Notre Dame, Tennessee and BYU.
Click to expand...

Top 17... can we keep it to Top 25... All 6 of those games they lost.

ACC: We, as a conference, played Auburn (#1), Stanford (#4), Ohio St (#6), Oklahoma (#9), LSU (#10), Boise St (#11), Alabama (#16), South Carolina (#19), West Virginia (#24) = 9 Top 25 current BCS teams. 3 more than Pac 10. They went to the wire with Auburn, LSU, and Boise St and won against West Virginia. Sounds like the ACC had a more challenging out of conference in comparison...

If you count in-conference...
LSU played 6 Top 25 teams THEMSELVES this year (Four of them are currently in Top 25).

Then consider this: There are 19 other bowl-eligible BCS conference teams that are 6-6 or 7-5. How many would not be bowl eligible if they played an extra conference game, another road game (or two), one fewer nonconference patsy and one more tough nonconference game?
Click to expand...

News Flash: Not all schools in AQ conferences are good at football. There are some good teams outside of AQ conferences as well (Mountain West went 4 wins 1 loss last bowl season). What I mean by this is adding another conference game doesn't equate into adding a quality game to your schedule.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']His posts is terrible. Before I start my analysis of his post, I want to state I think Stanford is a good team. Now onto some of Ted Miller's laughable quotes...[/QUOTE]

No more terrible than all the other conference bloggers.

Let's review last year's bowl season 2 wins, 5 losses. Yeah that's the toughest conference... :lol:
Click to expand...

That's last year, not this year which is the only year that's relevant right now.

Math doesn't take into fact how good the teams in the conference are. When two schools in the Pac 10 should really be in FCS, it doesn't matter. Washington St hasn't been competitive... well, ever. Washington has had winless seasons. Beating these two FCS schools each year doesn't make that more difficult to become bowl eligible as these are pretty much autowins. More BS about it being harder to be bowl eligible... Pac 10 sent in 7 teams last year, which is the same or more, than the Big 10, ACC, and Big East. Luckily, this crappy excuse is gone next year with the addition of 2 teams. ;)
Click to expand...

WSU has been terrible, but they beat Oregon State who gave both TCU and BSU a game. It is fact that's it's harder to be bowl eligible because each team has to play another conference game (meaning a game against Oregon or Stanford or Arizona, etc) instead of crap FBS team that the SEC and Big 10 love scheduling.

ACC: We, as a conference, played Auburn (#1), Stanford (#4), Ohio St (#6), Oklahoma (#9), LSU (#10), Boise St (#11), Alabama (#16), South Carolina (#19), West Virginia (#24) = 9 Top 25 current BCS teams. 3 more than Pac 10. They went to the wire with Auburn, LSU, and Boise St and won against West Virginia. Sounds like the ACC had a more challenging out of conference in comparison...

If you count in-conference...
LSU played 6 Top 25 teams THEMSELVES this year (Four of them are currently in Top 25).
Click to expand...

You seem to ignore the fact that rankings are a product of W/L record and many of those "ranked" (but undeserving) teams played crap schools. Ohio State is most guilty with Ws over Marshall, Ohio, and Eastern Illinois. Any school can get ranked if they start out with a cupcake schedule (Oregon being no exception this year). Somehow "quality losses" is only reserved for the SEC.

News Flash: Not all schools in AQ conferences are good at football. There are some good teams outside of AQ conferences as well (Mountain West went 4 wins 1 loss last bowl season). What I mean by this is adding another conference game doesn't equate into adding a quality game to your schedule.
Click to expand...

An additional conference game means 5 additional losses vs. a likely 5 additional wins. Pac-10 would send more teams bowling on average (and likely will next year in the Pac-12) if they could play Chatanooga, Ohio, Marshall, Troy, Louisiana-Monroe, etc instead of having to take on another conference foe. Regardless of how bad some of the teams are, WSU, California, Oregon State, Arizona State, and UCLA are all better than the majority of cupcakes that the rest of the BCS conferences play with their additional non-conference game.
 
[quote name='MasterSun1']
WSU has been terrible, but they beat Oregon State who gave both TCU and BSU a game. It is fact that's it's harder to be bowl eligible because each team has to play another conference game (meaning a game against Oregon or Stanford or Arizona, etc) instead of crap FBS team that the SEC and Big 10 love scheduling.
[/QUOTE]
Based on quality wins, lets check the conferences out (Big 10 I will concede to say they play very soft)...

Pac 10
Oregon played 2 ranked teams.
Stanford played 2 ranked teams.
Arizona played 2 ranked teams.

SEC
Auburn played 6 ranked teams. The 5 best in-conference. Adding Kentucky or Vandy wouldn't have made a difference.
Arkansas played 5 ranked teams. The 5 best in-conference. Adding Tenneessee or Vandy wouldn't have made a difference.
LSU played 5 ranked teams.

Whether it is out of conference or in-conference, SEC is playing better competition.

You seem to ignore the fact that rankings are a product of W/L record and many of those "ranked" (but undeserving) teams played crap schools. Ohio State is most guilty with Ws over Marshall, Ohio, and Eastern Illinois. Any school can get ranked if they start out with a cupcake schedule (Oregon being no exception this year). Somehow "quality losses" is only reserved for the SEC.
Click to expand...
Rankings are more than just W/L; it's more than just one factor. It's why your team moved from #1 to #2 because Auburn beat a quality team in Alabama, where Oregon walked over an overrated Arizona (yes, I have watched one of their games). It is also why Auburn didn't get into the BCS Championship in 2004 by playing those cupcakes. You are right though that anyone can get ranked by pumping up their out-of-conference schedule... the one thing you forgot is that they then play in-conference for the rest of the year. Look at the standings and see how many have come and gone. "Quality losses" are reserved for good teams beating other good teams; for instance, Virginia Tech losing to Boise St was a quality loss. See.. it isn't just reserved for the SEC. You just hear more about it since they have more quality teams than other conferences.
 
I hope we beat Ucon Sat night......WV gives the Big East its best chance to win in the Fiesta and it puts us against a good Clemson team in the CarCare Bowl in NC!
 
[quote name='A Happy Panda']The most eye opening piece of information to me was how few road games Auburn and Ohio St. played...4? FOUR fucking road games? Are you kidding me?[/QUOTE]

That is what I am saying.
 
[quote name='BlueLobstah']Finally, some good news regarding Cam Newton:[/QUOTE]

Here is the strange thing, doesn't the SEC have rule that states even if the player is not aware they can found guilty of violating rules?

If that's the case it sounds like the SEC is conveniently ignoring the rule so Netwon can win the Heisman and get in the NCG if they beat South Carolina this week.

I also think it's very naive to think that Cam was not aware of his father shopping for his services.

However, for now there is no evidence but, I would not be surprised if a couple years down the line when Cam is in the NFL we have a "Reggie Bush- like situation".

Essentially, if this holds up, it pretty much tells parents, "market your kids for 200 grand or more to a prospective school and as long as you don't tell them all is well and good."

Granted, that's probably how it has always worked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='lordopus99']
SEC
Auburn played 6 ranked teams. The 5 best in-conference. Adding Kentucky or Vandy wouldn't have made a difference.
Arkansas played 5 ranked teams. The 5 best in-conference. Adding Tenneessee or Vandy wouldn't have made a difference.
LSU played 5 ranked teams.

Whether it is out of conference or in-conference, SEC is playing better competition.[/QUOTE]

Ask LSU if playing Tennessee was easy.
 
Have you gone against yourself now? You' re just adding to his argument that the SEC is a deep conference with more quality teams. Tennessee is bowl eligible.
Not unless you're going the route of oh yeah, but Oregon beat them by more. In that case I don't remember anyone saying that Oregon is a bad team.
Maybe I'm getting a little tired of this stubborn argument though.
 
[quote name='scuba t']Have you gone against yourself now? You' re just adding to his argument that the SEC is a deep conference with more quality teams. Tennessee is bowl eligible.
Not unless you're going the route of oh yeah, but Oregon beat them by more. In that case I don't remember anyone saying that Oregon is a bad team.
Maybe I'm getting a little tired of this stubborn argument though.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't arguing about the depth of the SEC. I'm arguing about how the W/L records of them are inflated because they play 1 less conference game (this applies to all conferences besides the Pac-10 since it's the only one that plays 9 conference games) and get an additional twelve wins (if they win them all) vs. 6 wins and 6 losses. This leads to teams being ranked undeservingly. 4 games against cupcakes puts you just 2 away from bowl eligibility. It's not a secret how they get so many teams into bowl games.
 
[quote name='MasterSun1']I wasn't arguing about the depth of the SEC. I'm arguing about how the W/L records of them are inflated because they play 1 less conference game (this applies to all conferences besides the Pac-10 since it's the only one that plays 9 conference games) and get an additional twelve wins (if they win them all) vs. 6 wins and 6 losses. This leads to teams being ranked undeservingly. 4 games against cupcakes puts you just 2 away from bowl eligibility. It's not a secret how they get so many teams into bowl games.[/QUOTE]

Just because you are bowl eligible doesn't mean you get a bowl. The bowl selection committee takes into play the "money" factor i.e. who's fans will travel to see their teams, who will watch it on TV, etc. The Pac-10 has a whole traditionally has had problems with people going to/watching their bowl games.

From the SEC, they get in beating those teams but look with the proof I stated earlier... they as a conference have the highest winning percentage for bowl games. Last year they had 6 wins, 4 losses to the Pac-10 2 wins, 5 losses. Give the Pac-10 an additional wins in that season and they still would have lost their bowl games. If the Pac 10 was so strong, it should give them an advantage going into their bowls... but obviously it wasn't that strong as their teams lost.

As for the Pac-10 this year, they have 3 teams bowl eligible (would be 4 if USC didn't pay players) currently with the opportunity of 3 more making it; granted two are a long shot, requiring both Oregon and Arizona to get upset (those teams are Washington, Arizona St, and Oregon St). Last year, the Pac-10 got 7 teams in so obviously the factor you claimed didn't affect them then so why would it now. It's even more sad when I keep hearing how "amazing" :lol: the Pac 10 is yet the Big lEast has 6 bowl eligible.

Quote by my teams' coach (Jimbo Fisher) when asked about "Do you like league title games":
“I wish every league had to play one. We talk about the BCS, but there are so many unfair things going on out there from different academic rules, conference rules"

Another Quote showing how a conference title means more than doing the round robin crap:
"Sometimes, it is really special," Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops said. "But when you are undefeated and still have that hurdle to cross, and you look at other teams that aren't playing them and are sitting there and waiting, it isn't the best situation."

Well Bob, you will get the best situation going forward since the Big 12 most likely wont have a championship game next year. Expect a Big 12 team most likely going for a national championship each year going forward until hopefully the BCS goes away and a playoff starts (the only major sport that doesn't do a playoff).
 
[quote name='lordopus99']You might change your "SEC" with "NCAA".[/QUOTE]
Here is the rule from the SEC bylaws:

http://sec.xosdigitallabs.com/Portals/3/SEC%20Website/football/Constitution.pdf

14.01.3.2 Financial Aid. If at any time before or after matriculation in a member institution a student-athlete or
any member of his/her family receives or agrees to receive, directly or indirectly, any aid or assistance beyond or in
addition to that permitted by the Bylaws of this Conference (except such aid or assistance as such student-athlete
may receive from those persons on whom the student is naturally or legally dependent for support), such student-athlete
shall be ineligible for competition in any intercollegiate sport within the Conference for the remainder of
his/her college career.

It's also mentioned in the NCAA Bylaws:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...rview+of+NCAA+bylaws+governing+athlete+agents

Under NCAA Bylaw 12.3, a student-athlete (any individual who currently participates in or who may be eligible in the future to participate in intercollegiate sport) may not agree verbally or in writing to be represented by an athlete agent in the present or in the future for the purpose of marketing the student-athlete's ability or reputation. If the student-athlete enters into such an agreement, the student-athlete is ineligible for intercollegiate competition.
Also, a student-athlete may not accept transportation or other benefits from an athlete agent. This prohibition applies to the student-athlete and his or her relatives or friends.
The term "agent" includes actual agents, runners (individuals who befriend student-athletes and frequently distribute impermissible benefits) and financial advisers.
It is not a violation of NCAA rules if a student-athlete merely talks to an agent (as long as an agreement for agent representation is not established) or socializes with an agent. For example, a student-athlete could go to dinner with an agent and no NCAA violations would result if the student-athlete provided his own transportation and paid for his meal.

Both mention it and I think it's an agreement between the SEC and NCAA to have NCG they want which is Oregon vs Auburn. If Cam doesn't play this Saturday or during the NCG that severely diminishes Auburn's chances. They also mention in the announcement yesterday that this investigation is not over so they might find more evidence during the off season. However, it will not happen before the NCG, you can bet on that.
If it was Oklahoma or Ohio State undefeated and poised to jump Oregon or Auburn should they falter instead of TCU the NCAA could have very well thrown the book at Auburn.

It's not about integrity, it's about money plain and simple.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All I was stating is that the NCAA said he is ineligible, after they said his dad was guilty for asking for money. Auburn, not the SEC, talked with the NCAA about retracting it, claiming Cam as well as Auburn weren't aware of the dealings that his father did. He was then eligible again. All the SEC did in any of this matter (mediawise) was state that this type of behavior wouldn't be tolerated in the SEC. That's it. This is why I made my comment since it was really between the NCAA and Auburn, not the NCAA and SEC.

Of course, the majority of this has to do with money. The NCAA is fully aware that a Newton-less Auburn team is no where near as strong as they are with him. Taking away 80% of the offense would kill that team. The bowl they would play in would have lost money for all involved.

The best irony in all this situation is that there are players for all top college sports teams getting some sort of benefit. It is about who gets caught and who doesn't. Even if they do get caught, they only sit out for a couple games and get to play again (see the UNC/Georgia/Alabama agent scandel at the beginning of the year). It is also great irony that Mississippi St fired Rogers. They probably talked him into bringing it to life. Now the guy won't have a place anywhere in college football. Good work... you lose your career and the guy still plays :applause:
 
Pac-10 would send more teams to bowl games on average with an additional cupcake game instead of a conference game. 5 more wins means those fringe teams would be bowl eligible. Pac-10 would see 6-7 every year instead of having only 3-4 bowl teams this year.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']All I was stating is that the NCAA said he is ineligible, after they said his dad was guilty for asking for money. Auburn, not the SEC, talked with the NCAA about retracting it, claiming Cam as well as Auburn weren't aware of the dealings that his father did. He was then eligible again. All the SEC did in any of this matter (mediawise) was state that this type of behavior wouldn't be tolerated in the SEC. That's it. This is why I made my comment since it was really between the NCAA and Auburn, not the NCAA and SEC.

Of course, the majority of this has to do with money. The NCAA is fully aware that a Newton-less Auburn team is no where near as strong as they are with him. Taking away 80% of the offense would kill that team. The bowl they would play in would have lost money for all involved.

The best irony in all this situation is that there are players for all top college sports teams getting some sort of benefit. It is about who gets caught and who doesn't. Even if they do get caught, they only sit out for a couple games and get to play again (see the UNC/Georgia/Alabama agent scandel at the beginning of the year). It is also great irony that Mississippi St fired Rogers. They probably talked him into bringing it to life. Now the guy won't have a place anywhere in college football. Good work... you lose your career and the guy still plays :applause:[/QUOTE]

Well, the whole Newton allegations stretch to Miss St and Florida also. However, his eligibility was between Auburn and the NCAA.

Exactly, I mean it's naive to think that players at FBS schools don't get some extra benefits on the side. Correct, that's what it boils down and it also boils down to how much potential money the NCAA loses in relation to the decision. However, it seems many times the NCAA just makes up stuff along the way. There needs to be more balance in how these decisions are made.
 
If Cam Newton wasn't a Heisman hopeful and leading the #1 team in the nation, he would not have been reinstated.

Anyways, Auburn vs. Oregon for BCS National Championship. It's going to be one hell of a offensive showing and will come down to special teams and defense. Oregon has the edge on ST and a slight edge on defense. They have the speed to potentially stop Newton's scrambling ability, but will have to play better man coverage that they have shown recently. They'll also need to force a few turnovers which they are good at.

Auburn won't have to worry about NFL-size receivers that they've seen in the SEC, but the corners will have to be able to shed blocks at the Oregon receivers. Fairley is a beast and will be disrupted to Oregon's pass protection and inside running game.

All I know is that whoever wins will deserve it and will truly be the best team in college football this year (sorry TCU).
 
I hate to say it, but Cam Newton is going to go nuts on the Ducks defense. None of our guys can tackle. Plain and simple, they don't know how to tackle. It's been like this for years now.
 
[quote name='A Happy Panda']I hate to say it, but Cam Newton is going to go nuts on the Ducks defense. None of our guys can tackle. Plain and simple, they don't know how to tackle. It's been like this for years now.[/QUOTE]

Finally, somone being a realist. This BCS game won't be as good as you might think. Oregon doesn't have a chance unless they throw the ball downfield, which they haven't done much this year. If LSU, Alabama, South Carolina, etc couldn't stop Newton, there is no way Oregon can.

For the bowl schedule, there aren't as many good games as I would have thought. Alot of them seem lopsided (example: hello #7 Oklahoma vs unranked UConn, whose got shutout by Louisville).

Can we stop having Boise St playing Mountain West opponents in bowl games... I want to see them play a AQ school.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Finally, somone being a realist. This BCS game won't be as good as you might think. Oregon doesn't have a chance unless they throw the ball downfield, which they haven't done much this year. If LSU, Alabama, South Carolina, etc couldn't stop Newton, there is no way Oregon can.[/QUOTE]

Those teams all have 2 or more losses (albeit 1 each to Auburn) and were competitive games (except the SEC title game rematch, way to not show up SC). I think the game will live up to the hype. Oregon CAN throw the ball downfield (28 TD passes by Darron Thomas this year), but why throw when you can run the ball as well as they can. They'll likely have trouble against's Auburn's front with Fairley who's a beast, but that secondary is average at best. Both teams are going to put up points and it's going to come down to (sadly) defense and both aren't elite by any means.

Can we stop having Boise St playing Mountain West opponents in bowl games... I want to see them play a AQ school.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. Boise State is going to slaughter Utah. Would've loved to see them against a Big 10, Pac-10, or SEC mid-tier team.
 
It was rumored that Florida was going to go after Chip Kelly if Urban couldn't continue coaching last year...I hope those rumors don't come back again.
 
Some much needed changes coming to WVU coaching....though in a very weird manner.

http://www.msnsportsnet.com/page.cfm?sport=football&show=17745

In short, current Oklahoma State offensive co-ordinator (formerly OC at Houston and Texas Tech) Dana Holgorsen is our new OC and QB coach next year, and will take over for Stewart as head coach in 2012.

So very weird for our AD to have basically forced a head coach in waiting on the current staff--guess they don't want the bad PR of firing Stewart this year (who would finish 10-3 if he wins the bowl) nor to pay his full buyout. Seems like it could be a chemistry nightmare though.

Good part is our defensive coaches are great (#2 total defense in the nation) and Holgorsen has pledged to keep them on in 2012 if they want to stay. So hopefully we'll get Holgerson's explosive offense to pair with it, rather than the inept offense of Stewart and current OC Jeff Mullen the past 3 years.
 
Bowl season started with what I predicted, which was terrible games.
3 Blowouts of the first 3 games. Good job putting good matches together BCS! :applause:

Another note... Ralph Friedgen, Maryland's coach and current ACC Coach of the Year, is in talks of being asked to retire or accept a buyout of his last year on contract.
 
Yeah, it's a done deal that Friedgen is forced out. Leach is indeed the top target apparently.

The main reasons behind it was that coach in waiting Franklin too the Vandy job and will be taking some UMD assistants, so they UMD AD decided it was pointless to let Friedgen finish out the last year of his contract since there would be a big staff change anyway.

That and apparently the Under Armour founder who is a UMD alum wants Leach in there and is willing to pony up for Friedgen's buyout etc.
 
4-1 blowouts so far. :applause:

NCAA allowing more stuff. Terrelle Pryor and 4 other buckeyes allowed to play in Sugar Bowl but suspended the first 5 games of next season for selling rings, jerseys, and awards and receiving benefits from a tattoo shop.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']4-1 blowouts so far. :applause:

NCAA allowing more stuff. Terrelle Pryor and 4 other buckeyes allowed to play in Sugar Bowl but suspended the first 5 games of next season for selling rings, jerseys, and awards and receiving benefits from a tattoo shop.[/QUOTE]

osu%20charm.jpg
d-17537.jpg


Couldn't find a pic of the Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award but I say this as someone who hates jewelry, these things are REALLY nice looking and I'm not sure why anyone who earned them would part with them (I know.. $$). That said, I don't see the issue of selling their own memorabilia if they're stoopid/foolish enough to make that decision unless the rule is simply in place to protect the dumbass players from such a bonehead move.

I don't agree with the suspension, but I further don't agree with delaying it if they're gonna do it.. it makes the governing bodies come off as imbeciles.
 
[quote name='QiG']

Couldn't find a pic of the Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award but I say this as someone who hates jewelry, these things are REALLY nice looking and I'm not sure why anyone who earned them would part with them (I know.. $$). That said, I don't see the issue of selling their own memorabilia if they're stoopid/foolish enough to make that decision unless the rule is simply in place to protect the dumbass players from such a bonehead move.

I don't agree with the suspension, but I further don't agree with delaying it if they're gonna do it.. it makes the governing bodies come off as imbeciles.[/QUOTE]

Exacty, they are nice but, I think it's silly that a player is not allowed to sell their own stuff. Items like this hold a different value to different people. Some former players feel they are priceless, while others just see a way they can make money.

I agree with this as well, I mean I'm a die hard Buckeye fan and know without those players we stand a slim chance of winning. However, this obviously shows once again with The NCAA it's all about the money.

Seriously, if a photo or video was discovered of Lemarcus James or Cam Newton accepting money to play for their respective schools, the NCAA would ignore it until after the National Championship game.

The NCAA are some of the biggest hypocrites in history.
 
What a great way to ring in the new year watching my team take down a good South Carolina team. Greg Reid was a beast. 2 Force Fumbles, 4 Pass Breakups, and 1 TKO (see spoiler).

The Washington win was a shock. I think Notre Dame's domination on Miami to be the biggest shock this bowl season so far for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDl-rsZYVQY
 
WVU laid a goose egg in the bowl. Not surprising given the coaching mess.

Still turmoil ongoing apparently with the DC apparently threatening to quit if Coach Stew isn't fired immediately rather than having his one lame duck year before Holgorsen takes over.

Hope he wins that battle, Stewart never should have go the job in the first place....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top