BigRedBuster

You said “out of the way to Florida” like people expect him to fly from California to Florida to see him. That’s not what was being discussed.

He said...”if he’s in the area”.

Ummm....no.....usually, they are actually correct. But....over the time of the recruitment of a kid, things change and so predictions change. By the time he commits, usually the CBs are correct. Many of the better experts actually have conversations with the recruit to get a feel. That's way better than what's at the top of this page.

Why do people do that? These sites give the best guess they can with the information they have at the time. 247 Crystal Balls are the same way. People predict where they think they are going to end up. The kid...over time....has a change of heart, the expert changes his/her CB and people act like it's a major problem with the expert.

To be clear, I am not saying that all these decisions are made with best intentions. A prime example is the Cabelas/Bass Pro transaction and layoffs. THAT was solely done because of activist shareholders that forced the issue. There is no reason why Cabelas needed to sell other than that.

Fore which.....these decisions are made not just for the shareholders, but to not put at risk the rest of the employees of the company.

The bottom line does not just benefit stock holders. The bottom line must be positive or all employees of the company suffers. Sometimes it's needed to sacrifice some employees to be able to protect the rest of the employees. Years ago, I was in a position where I had to make the decision to cut 37% of our workforce. It sucked. Yes....ultimately.....I made that choice as a share holder and I needed to do what was necessary to save the company. HOWEVER......this company would not be here benefiting the employees that remained and the ones we have since hired, if I hadn't made that choice. This is no different if I were running a fortune 500 company. The US bailed out GM because of bad management decisions from the past. Many of those "bad decisions" were made because the alternative was tough and not popular. Ultimately, it brought the company to it's knees and risked every other employees welfare in the company. Cutting 37% of our workforce didn't only benefit me as a stockholder.

Thanks for the clarification....and I would agree with that. Just look at the average number of snaps defenses go up against in a game now compared to 20 years ago. It's just like I said somewhere, it used to be that I thought an offense should be able to count on a defense to hold the other team to under 20. Now, I would say that's 30. The games are just being played much faster, more snaps, more possessions...etc.

Read the rest of my post.

I completely understand and appreciate what you are saying. The better educated a population is, the better. I wouldn't simply say "too many people are going to college". I would say, too many people are trying to get the wrong type of post HS training and expecting it to reap financial benefits later. There are LOTS of types of post HS training. Many people think they should go to a big 4 year school when what they really want to do could be accomplished as an apprentice, community college or tech school. This is a problem with parenting, HS guidance....AND......professions themselves. Example. There is no reason in hell why an entry level grade school teacher needs a 4 year degree. None. So, why not allow them to get a two year degree and then start earning a living doing what they want to do?

This is an over used phrase that isn't true. Many times these moves protect the jobs of the rest of the thousands that work for the company. If companies don't do these moves from time to time, it puts the company in jeopardy and thus....the rest of the thousands of jobs that people benefit from. Sometimes companies need to make a major move in a different direction to survive. Unfortunately, sometimes employees get caught in the transition. It's not always just because of greed form share holders.

It can be a factor late in games. But, like I said, this is not a reason for a defense to be giving up a lot of points and yards early in games.

Very appropriate question. In general (obviously not counting defensive points from the other side) I always thought that if a defense holds the team to <20 points, the offense should win the game. Now, that needs to be more like <30. If a defense holds a team to less than 30 points and the team loses, in general, the offense should be scoring more points. If the offense scores 35 points and loses, there's a chance the defense should have held them to fewer points.

This staff obviously takes the off season strength training very seriously. I could see them not being as interested in a JUCO OT that doesn't get here till summer simply because of the fact he wouldn't have the time in the weight room to get the benefit he needs to contribute next fall. This attitude could be different for other positions.

I'm not a believer in this. If this really is the problem, the defense would be dominant at the beginning of games and then wear down and give up yards and points late in the second half. The Iowa game is a prime example that this isn't necessarily the case. The defense actually got better as the game went on. If the defense is getting 3 and outs, a quick offense wouldn't be that big of a deal. The issue is that offenses our defenses go against are totally different than "blackshirts of old".

Well....you do need to add the recruiting class to this. For instance, we will have at least 3 scholarship QBs....etc. 2 would be a concern. 3 is fine.

I would at least be open to listening to this. However, I have never heard Bernie claim anything like this is what he wants. I only hear him ranting about "Free college for all"....for which, is what I originally said "NO" to in this thread. Our HSs have the goal of educating everyone. I still believe this is a good goal and we should continue this. For instance, China only educates the top students. The rest grow up uneducated. I prefer the US system instead of China's. (also something to keep in mind when comparing test results between countries). However, not everyone is cut out for anything above that. Some are....some aren't. Quite honestly, some should be in the military or right into the work force. It also shouldn't be a "right" for that student to be there. Right now, problem kids can't be kicked out of HS because they have the "right" to be there. College, of any kind, should be able to have people who are serious about being there and bettering themselves. I believe making it "free" only adds to college being like HS with people who hold other people back. If the student has skin in the game of some kind, it weeds out at least some of the crap students that aren't there for the right reasons.....and hinder other's education. I could see way more instances like what Funhusker described.

I'm willing to listen to ideas on community colleges and tech schools. There are way too many kids going to 4 year schools and not enough going to these places to learn trades. However, I'm still not on board with just making it free like public HS. I would say the kid needs to meet certain requirements like GPA, progress towards degree....etc. Even then, they should pay something. Maybe something very minimal. But, they should pay something. If the kid goes below a minimum GPA, the funding gets cut off. Another problem is that some CCs are nothing more than an athletic training ground for sports at the D1 level. I knew a kid that went to Colby Community College on a track scholarship. The academics were a complete joke and all they cared about was getting the kid into a D1 school no matter what it takes. When he finally quit and tried getting into a bigger school, no place would take the credits. Tax payers should not be paying for this.

I'm confused....he promised.

It doesn’t have to be exactly on signing day.

I'm going to go with two local boys. I I'm very excited to see what Hickman and Henrich can do. For someone who came in without much publicity and has produced on the field, I'll go with Bootle. The kid was pretty much an unknown nationally till our staff found him at a satellite camp in Florida and were impressed with his speed. The kid has worked his butt off here.

I saw speculation where he might bring Gene Chizeck in as DC and Cliff Kingsberry in as OC. That would cause a stir.

This seems like a situation like Steve Spurrier going to South Carolina. I don't see him having the same type of success he had at Texas. He'll go to NC, collect a dang good pay check, live out his dream to coach another team, then retire a happy man.....without really winning anything.

Chinander isn't going anywhere for at least a couple years so anyone asking for his replacement is...well....being premature. That doesn't mean some schemes and decisions aren't appropriate to discuss. My biggest question, in a broad sense, on the year is.....why did we see such an aggressive defense in the CU game and then it seemed like it disappeared for most of the rest of the year? After the CU game, I was excited about the defense.....only to watch them struggle and not be aggressive the rest of the year.

I usually don't have a problem with Dirk like others do and think he's a dang good writer. However, the "fragile fan base" seems like an un needed shot at his audience. Not sure what he's getting at. We just got done with a 4 win football season where the vast majority of fans are still 100% behind the coach and excited about next year. We have a basketball team that most fans are excited to see how this year turns out. We have been more than patient with the coaching staff over the last few years. I'm not seeing "fragile".