Undone

I didn't know that SCC was creating a football program?

I would think that losing Kaelin makes it more likely that Dylan signing with us is true.

Lots of chatter in Lincoln that Dylan is N and that the announcement is coming by Sunday night. Standard disclaimer that there's absolutely no way to know if any of it is actually true.

Of course. But as high school seniors, Josh Allen & Patrick Mahomes were 3 star players according to 24/7. There are very few similarities between those two guys and Dylan Raiola as college recruits. Now they're both perfect examples of how where you play doesn't necessarily matter in the long run, no arguments there. I'm just talking about the thought process that the college recruit goes through coming into his freshman year somewhere.

Yep. That's why I thought back in the spring that we had a legitimate chance of landing him, given Rhule's college coaching track record. Different train of thought: from the NIL angle, I think the amount of money any college team is offering factors into the equation less for high profile players like Dylan (who have a good chance of going to the NFL someday) over the low to mid tier players. Because if you make it to the NFL that money is going to be way more, most likely. Dylan is one of those players. So I'd think the main criteria is who he & his family thinks can develop & showcase his abilities the best for the NFL.

Yeah, when I wrote that post I didn't know that Georgia's #2 QB has supposedly transferred out. That negated some of what I wrote. Yes, if coaching staffs know what they're doing then he's probably not seeing the field as a true freshman either way. But I have little doubt that "playing earlier" factors into decision making - even if it's not happening your true freshman year.

If he's telling his family that his ultimate goal is to be an NFL quarterback someday, I believe really strongly that all involved are trying to get him to the school that best fulfills that goal. If I'm being honest, I would have said it was Georgia. But also Rhule does seem to know how to put players into the NFL and maybe we're putting the pieces together on the skill player positions to actually make us showcase & develop his abilities to roughly the same degree.

This context is huge if true.

What I would expect with a recruit like Raiola coming to a dumpster fire program like ours is one main thing (and then an obvious second one in the new era of NIL): 1. The big draw is having the potential to play much earlier than you would somewhere else. 2. You somehow get a bigger paycheck than any other competing offers. #2 is very plausible. But #1 is more of a head scratcher if McCord is coming in.

I haven't read the last few pages of this thread. Just logging into the board for the first time since Friday. Is this McCord buzz even halfway legit? Why would he enter the portal in the first place...and why in the hell would he want to come play for us?

Does anybody know when Purdy will have groin surgery?

I guess I'd have it like this: 1. T-Magic 2. Joe Ganz 3. 2AM (but he's almost tied with Ganz for 2nd IMO) 4. Tommy Armstrong 5. Ameer out of the wildcat.

I don't mind anybody trying to dunk on the sweatshops comment, specifically because I didn't make the comment originally. The big thing I want to convey about NIL becoming reality is this: NIL coming into existence was about getting rid of the rule that the NCAA had made that said the market can't decide (through whatever avenues) how and how much a player can make. Instituting NIL is less of an overt statement saying that college athletes "weren't being paid enough" as it is just admitting that the previous rule saying they can't make paper money (or any other kind of payment) really wasn't logically consistent.

Oop, we have somebody else that's struggling with reading comprehension. I can copy & paste my last few posts for you if it would help.

I can tell you're still not understanding. I repeat: his point was not to actually have anybody reflect on how college football players are like people in sweatshops. I can't underscore that enough. It was about the concept in general of somebody being compensated something versus not being compensated at all and then saying "what's the problem; they're getting paid something." NIL coming into existence was about getting rid of the rule that the NCAA had made that said the market can't decide (through whatever avenues) how and how much a player can make. Instituting NIL is less of an overt statement saying that college athletes weren't being "paid enough" as it is just admitting that the previous rule saying they can't make paper money (or any other kind of payment) really wasn't logically consistent. The athletes were never like kids in a sweatshop and NFL players making millions are not like slave labor "because that's not even enough money." Literally nobody has said either of those things in this thread - it's just you saying it due to not having understood the premise.

His analogy was great. It maybe just went over your head. It wasn't saying that college football players are like people in sweatshops. It was about the concept in general of somebody getting paid versus not getting paid at all and then saying "what's the problem; they're getting paid something." Yeah, they're getting paid something - but it's obvious when some kind of disparity exists. I think NIL is about people finally admitting that it was absurd for everyone else in the college sports ecosystem to be allowed to make actual paper money being a part of that system except the players.

That is what we call a rhetorical question. I'm mildly amused at my fellow Americans that reject the idea of allowing the concept of fair market value price discovery to occur for college football players. It's here, it's happening, and you're a part of it.

Ah, thanks for this! That's what I was looking for.

Is this confirmed information or just assumed to be true? Could be that the NCAA would make outside NIL against their rules when this rolls out, I'd think?

This is some really good analysis right here. And it isn't just accuracy or play calling in general that affects the bolded part. I think it's also: 1. Some kind of drive by our staff (past and present) to run the QB quite a bit. 2. This season we ran the play clock down on almost every single play, resulting in fewer offensive plays, period. People will argue that item #1 starts to go away if the other elements are clicking. But this goes to the last thing you said about "establishing a proof of concept." This is kind of rhetorical here, but what is the proof of concept? I think we're all really wondering that heading into year 2.

Agreed. I always say that it's dumb to pour over things coaches say in press conferences and then I myself proceed to pour over things our coaches say in press conferences. The short version is probably like this: I thought his comments were weird. Don't insinuate that anybody on the roster currently isn't good. That said, you don't worry too much about what he says (in the presser right after the last game of the season) - you see what he's done by spring.

Nobody vote in the poll. Fight the urge - I believe in you!

Iowa was never really in the game in my opinion. Their offense is even worse this season than their 2021 squad. It is crazy though that Michigan only had 213 yards of offense and Iowa had 155. Normally that kind of stat line would lend itself to maybe a 17-14 type of game. But, Iowa's offense is next-level terrible. Once Michigan got up 3-0, the game was over. The Vegas betting spread that landed at Michigan -21.5 before kickoff was basically just a question of "how many points will Michigan score?" Because Iowa wasn't going to put any points up.