hskrpwr13

Now I see the hat, and he's wearing an ASU jacket. Hope its the big tease before the actual announcement.

Anyone else nervous that the Husker hat was sitting there and no view of the ASU hat?

Perhaps it just the way Im reading your verbiage, but are you stating that Frost only accepts Tannor if JJB decides against NU?

Is it that he may be here in August, or that he won't be coming to NU at all?

Regarding the bold, you need a new line. You're wearing out that one. And one can make any comment seem senseless when all context is removed. The point one was that TO's numbers would look even better (perhaps even better than Saban's) if he were at a program that had the advantages that he had at NU (advantages that Bama also has), plus the recruiting advantages that Bama has today. I believe that Osborne accomplishes every bit as much as Saban, and possibly more, if put in the same situation as Saban at Bama (or LSU). I've previously provided my reasoning. You're free to disagree. If this makes absolutely zero sense to you, simply assume an Inigo Montoya-type response.

I picture him wearing a purple fedora while sending that second tweet.

I appreciate you want to have a discussion, but I feel like I'm being hooked. The thread is essentially about Osborne V Saban as the "greater" coach. Saban left MSU, in large part, because he couldn't recruit at a high enough level to win at the level he wanted. Yes, the prestige of NU is greater than that of MSU, but MSU was, and still is, in a much better recruiting location. I think Saban has the talent that he could've taken MSU to the heights of an NU, if he had the desire to stay and do it. Instead, he took the easier path (not saying he's wrong for doing that, but I'm not going to discount that he did) of taking a job at a school in a recruiting hot bed (twice)...because it was an easier path to grand success. If TO had taken a similar path, I think he accomplishes the same level of success (maybe better?) for which we currently laud Saban. Yes, Saban officially has the numbers, and yes I'm biased to TO. But I'm willing to hand my team to the guy that believed he could reach the apex of the sport, even when things started going a bit south (thinking late 80s/early 90s), than with a guy that left a more similar situation to NU (MSU) to find an easier job to reach the apex of the sport. You can disagree, and certainly my opinion provides little "proof" that TO is better Saban, but hopefully, my support for my position are more clear. Another thing, when I compare Osborne v Saban, is the conference/national competition each has faced through his career. Osborne, in conference, has had to face some big time coaches like Switzer, Snyder (in his prime), Bill McArtney, and nationally, guys like Bryant, Paterno, Saban, Jimmy Johnson, Hayes, Schembechler, Spurrier at Fla, and I know I'm leaving out other HOFers. Compare those to Saban's SEC tenure. In the SEC, Fulmer (after prime), Les Miles, Richt, Meyer (maybe I'm missing someone). Nationally: Meyer, Sweeney (but hes not yet been around long), maybe Jimbo, Carrol (when at USC) (maybe I'm missing someone), but I would certainly argue that the overall coaching competition Saban has faced most of his SEC career is nothing like the level of coaching TO faced during his tenure. Again, simply my opinion

Not for reasons that Saban stated. Just because TO inherited a that won to NCs doesn't mean both NU and MSU aren't disadvantaged in relation to NU. For NU, its about recruiting base. For MSU it is/was more about finances and support. My statement wasn't an invitation to argue the merits of mid 70's NU versus those of '07 Bama. If anyone could just win at NU, Solich would still be coaching the team. Saban stated that a major reason (among others) why he left MSU was his inability to recruit there to the level he wanted. He BELIEVED he didn't possess the ability to win there. Osborne could've taken his skill to the SEC if we wanted an easier path to recruits, and by extension, wins/NCs. Instead he KNEW he had the ability to win at a high level despite disadvantages. Heck, even mulled taking the MSU job as new challenge. So my overall point is that I belief Osborne could've won at a high level wherever he went, and probably matched everything that Saban has accomplished at Bama if he'd coached there. I don't believe the same could be said if the situations were reversed. Let me know which jobs Osborne turned down or fled from because he didn't think he could win there.

The bias I'll always have against Saban, despite his greatness, is that he left Michigan St, in large part, because he didn't believe he could recruit well enough there to win at a high level. Osborne didn't/wouldn't have done that.

(since thread is derailed anyway) Tweets...Jerseys.... Its all about context, People

To me the non-medical redshirt is somewhat an archaic designation, and I agree with those stating to just give players a 5th year. I question what MAJOR advantage 4 games provide. Perhaps there's some anecdotal evidence where some players, lets say in the past 10 years, made it to the pros by benefiting from that 5th year of playing when that 5th year wasn't due to a medical redshirt. However, it seems like the vast majority of players going pro are doing so with a designation somewhere between redshirt Sophomore and true Senior. Otherwise, the 4 games, on top of a 4-year playing career, are simply extra playing time for the "career" college player.

To bolster your final though about the greatest not being revisionist history, how many times as Bama kind of snuck it at the end when it looked like they'd didn't deserve,, or had to rely on a last game loss by another team. Bama's run looks best as a complete cake, not as much when you separate out the pieces of batter.

Oh, sure. Then the SEC gets to benefit with even more teams in the playoff. No thanks. I'd rather a potentially deserving team be left out of a 4 team playoff (sticking with Moiraine's comment about 4 different conferences represented) than to continue to allow the whole of the SEC to receive spoils that aren't collectively earned.

I felt pretty good about the offense, but it pumped up my attitude seeing it work well against Auburn. Technically, I still have doubt about the D, but again, I have a more positive outlook about it after the bowl game. Frost and company seem like solid recruiters and have been impressed with how they kept most of the commits and got new commits excited, all while prepping for a tough bowl game.

We're stating the same thing.

Sure. But, I'm assuming he's had the necessary conversations that makes him believe he has a much less shot at playing time with Frost than Snyder.

In a vacuum, yes. If you have any desire to try to go pro, and you need to get on film, you don't sit for one coach when you may play for another, even if there may be a difference in the coaches' pedigrees. In this case, can't currently say that Bill Snyder is a step down from Frost.

Also, not a fan of expanding the playoff, but if it were to happen, it needs to be started nearly immediately after the season. Again, using Bama as an example, I don't like that a team gets a month to heal and game-plan, essentially creating a DIFFERENT team than the one that earned/was-given the opportunity.

The problem with Bama is that if the playoff started on Dec 1 instead of Jan 1, we probably have a different outcome to the Clemson game. The second problem with Bama is that they were comparable to Wisconsin (mostly), OSU, UCF, USC, and not "unequivocally" better than them. And the SEC, as a whole was not unequivocally better than other conferences, the SEC should not have been awarded a second team. Admittedly, the trickle-down effect is a flaw within college football, but its also a reality. More to the OP topic, I'm kinda hoping someone (here?) will alert when Frost is on. This way I give ESPN as little rating as possible.

I won't watch as its my little protest. I wouldn't necessarily mind watching the two teams, but I refuse to increase the ratings for what will essentially be an infomercial for the SEC, when in reality it should only be about the two participants. I okay with stating the two teams deserve their spot, but the rest of the SEC doesn't.

This is where my complaint comes in. As someone who's not a fan of expanding the playoff, I think the measurables being used, to create the metric, are flawed. I have a really hard time believing that Wisconsin's 13-game FBS schedule was so bad (compared to Bama's 11-game FBS schedule and in lieu of the bowl results) that the two teams wound up essentially "even". And even if you do believe the metric, that certainly doesn't prove that Bama was "unequivocally" better than the other non-top 3 teams, as the playoff committee claimed.

I wouldn't consider Valentine a backup. The only reason he wasn't Patriot's starting run-stuffing NT was due to season ending injury.

Agree that by truly objective metrics, Bama should not have been in. I also wonder if they'd played Clemson during conference championship week, if the results would've been different. However, given the time off to heal and game plan, Bama is probably the toughest to beat.

The answer can still be yes, and at the same time, the end not justify the means. The answer can still be yes, and at the same time, the end not justify the means.

So he has unofficially committed? LOL