Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

157 Excellent

About zeWilbur

  • Rank
    Three-Star Recruit

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Alexandria, VA

Recent Profile Visitors

5,264 profile views
  1. If a kid needs two years to develop then he isn't a day one starter. A day one starter is simply better than what you currently have, not what every school currently has. Some kid that needs two years to develop into a starter at Alabama might be physically ready to start as a freshman at Nebraska based on their current rosters.
  2. I disagree because it is a subjective statement. A day one starter at Nebraska might not be at Alabama. The statement is about recruiting yourself forward no matter where your team is at right now. We all want the 5 star kids but 3's and 4's can still meet the need.
  3. I would disagree about how a NG should be in a 3-4. The stalemate is great but he only takes one block. Both of the ends eat two. That is more useful even if they give ground (within reason). Unfortunately Honas blitzes (or reads run ridiculously quickly) on the weak side A gap. This play already had a numbers advantage to the strong side and that made it worse. Barry wasn't able to flow to the hole and Bootle can't make up the difference. If TR is able to eat two blocks this is a very different play.
  4. They can't, in the B1G at least. Every player could quit the team tomorrow and their scholarships are honored through at least 4 years if they are still getting the grades. It goes into a non-athletic distinction so it doesn't count against the 85 limit. The training camps are usually paid for by the agents who recoup when the checks start rolling in. They won't pay for the camps unless they are pretty darned sure they are getting their money back. Lower tier kids usually work out at their usual facilities with the coaches blessing.
  5. Sure. I would be on board with the FU-NCAA. The NCAA's spineless inconsistency neutered my faith in them years ago. Even if you removed the concerns of smaller schools I am not sure how you keep the same issues (corruption, lack of consistency, etc.) from happening. And if you were willing to go that far why not just separate from the schools completely and have a legitimate minor league? I don't want to strawman you but I haven't been able to think of a way to allow for any 'pay the players' type action without creating a best team money can buy scenario. How happy would you be losing indefinitely to Iowa because a T. Boone Pickens type figure emerged and bankrolled them because he "decided" that every player's autograph was worth at least $100k/year? No one in the B1G West (and likely the East) would be able to compete and every year would be a race for second at best. I just don't see that as a field all but 2-3 schools can compete on and would rather not ruin everything in pursuit of it. I am also not sure of which schools it would be but history tells me a few would likely be in Texas. And to head off the silliness Warren Buffet has already said he will never be that guy for us.
  6. Every major sports manages by having a single centralized power and players with collective bargaining. To accomplish that you would need every P5 and G5 school to give up whatever their specific benefits are so the NCAA can redistribute it in a 'fair' manner a la NFL, MLB, NHL. It would very likely take care of your concerns. However, you already feel that the NCAA is "unbelievably corrupt and greedy". I am not disagreeing at all. So the answer is giving them more power?
  7. No worries. I know some of these are hot button issues and message boards are great for venting sometimes. The funny thing is that I generally agree with you. There is too much money involved and it isn't going anywhere. I just disagree with implementing a third party solution as way to make things equitable. If the argument is that the schools are making too much money then third party money will never solve that 'problem'. As long as even one player gets nothing extra people will cry foul. That is why I think it has to be solved at the school or conference level, at least. The other issue is the general likeness rights. People have rights to their likeness. However, every job I have ever had has required signing away at least my intellectual property and likeness rights in some capacity while I worked there. All occurred voluntarily as a condition of the job. I don't see this as any different. And If your boss decided that your wage would be largely replaced with benefits you would likely find another job. Others might not. This is entirely voluntary. Even offering athletic scholarships is something NU does voluntarily. I have been thinking about potential unintended consequences. Even if we assume no ill will or bagman related shenanigans: Let's say you are a stud high school athlete. Your senior year get a multi-year deal with Nike (because top 50-100 athletes will ALL have Nike/Adidas type deals) and everyone is thrilled. You get your money and Nike gets you as their billboard. Now you start looking at colleges. You can't go to an Adidas school because it would violate your contract and you are happy with your Nike contract. So you go to a Nike school. Fast forward a bit, your contract is still valid but the school switches to Adidas. You could transfer and sit out a year but that would make you less valuable for your next shoe deal. Can you sue the school to keep them from changing affiliations? Technically yes, because you have a financial standing. Can this be taken one step further and be used as to hold up conference realignment and tv deals because your lawyer thinks it could make you less valuable? Absolutely.
  8. Sure, go to your boss and tell them that the free food, housing, cutting edge training facilities, top tier coaches/trainers, full time nutritionist, and 'job training' for the your life goals simply don't count because it isn't cash in hand. Except a living stipend which is cash but still doesn't count because it isn't enough... apparently. My problem isn't that you don't think it's fair, the problem is that your argument is completely dismissive of the other side and it is condescending. If you wanted to make an argument about some arbitrary amount needing to be met and having the school/booster/bagman make up the difference from what they already get we can have a great conversation around it. But it seems some want to take a match to the whole thing to get to something they think is "fair". Some of us disagree.
  9. Not that great? The average degree fron any school will add about $1m in salary over a lifetime compared to just high school. An engineering degree can add another 2-3 million on top of that. All without the cost of acquiring the degree. UNL doesn't have to be that great. Just average is life changing.
  10. This will be exactly as effective as Colorado making marijuana legal. Until the NCAA changes the rules, or the athletes stop participating on a voluntary basis, nothing will change.
  11. Good stuff. You are a little off when looking at the 4* upperclassmen. Of the 8 4* upperclassmen only 3 (Raridon, Lee, Anderson) have been beaten out. The others (4) are Farniok, Darrion Daniels, Dismuke, and Jackson. The extra body is Jahkeem Green and he is new/likely redshirting. 12 of the 20 4* are underclassmen. 8 of those are freshman. Only 5 of the 12 underclassmen 4* are playing significant minutes at this point. (Martinez, Washington, Robinson, Jurgens, Tannor) The biggest short term impact should come from the defense. There is at least one 4* redshirting this year at every level of the defense. If Frost can keep the wheels on then we should see some level of depth and consistency around year 4. All that's left to do is hurry up and wait.
  12. He is still very skinny (but is only a junior) and it shows when he is at camps. 24/7 has him at 250 lb, rivals at 282lb. As he keeps filling out and 24/7 updates their rankings he will probably get a nice bump.
  13. The confusion comes because this is not an explicit rule but derived from other rules. 1. When a player is out of bounds and touches the ball the ball is considered out of bounds. 2. A player cannot voluntarily leave and be the next person to touch the ball. That is illegal touching. But the trick is that the player never came back in. So it isn't illegal touching. 3. The possession never changes so, technically, the kicking team performed a kick-off that was ruled out of bounds before a change of possession and was not a touchback. Hence, the kick was out of bounds.
  14. zeWilbur

    Win #900

    Amazingly even better than that. 103-8 in the last 8 years(2011-2018) 142-15 back to 2008 (when the Saban dominance began) including the 3 wins this season.
  • Create New...