junior4949

7 hours ago, r06ue1 said:

Just imagine if the '99 team had won the natty, then we would have never heard the names Callahan or Riley, smooth transition from Solich to Frost.  

Phillip Fulmer, Lloyd Carr, and Mack Brown all say hi.  I don't think winning the NC in 99' would have bought him a lot of time.  I'm guessing it buys him 2 years tops.  If we'd have won the NC in 01' then he more than likely gets afforded more time. 

December 2, 2002 is probably the date that sticks out most to me in terms of causing a lot of change.  This was the date Bill Byrne handed in his letter or resignation.  On one hand, it's hard to fault Pederson, TO, and Eichorst.  They were simply hired as AD to fire the current football coach.  On the other hand, it's hard not to fault them for the clowns they hired.  It probably isn't fair to include TO, but he was hired as AD to can Callahan.  It also isn't really fair to include Bo as one of the clowns as he did inherit a mess and changed the direction of the program even though he really wasn't a long term solution. 

How much money does it take to buy trophies?  Right now, we're cash rich and asset poor along with the rest of the B1G in comparison to the SEC.  We may laugh all the way to the bank while they laugh throughout the rest of the year.  Urban's "retirement" was a huge blow to the conference especially if Harboob can't get his $hit together.  Other than Frost and Harboob, what can this conference really hang it's hat on?  This conference is beginning to resemble the old Big 8 after OU went on probation. 

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 9:22 AM, Redux said:

Hey, whoever my new fan is, you may not like hearing the truth but Scott Frost wasn't the lock Hedley's Tall Tale suggests he was.  I know some don't like hearing it but it's true. 

 

-He had other offers, good offers 

-He had doubts about taking this job. It took secretly meeting, with Moos mind you, to set his mind at ease

-He didn't want to leave UCF just yet

-He got cold feet the closer it got

 

Ultimately he made the choice to take it BECAUSE the job wasn't coming around again with the right set of circumstances.  Believe whatever you want, believe that Tom called him home and he came running and it was that easy.  I really don't care.  But had he stayed at UCF and we ended up with a 3rd or 4th choice, he never ends up here.  So, ultimately, Moos wasn't just a monkey thrust into the job to hire Scott because HE wanted the job.

Is the bolded really true?  Since TO retired, we haven't exactly been known as a program that holds onto football coaches.  Heck, we've had as many ADs since TO's retirement as coaches haven't we?  It's likely had Frost not taken the job that it would have been open again within the next 3-7 years. 

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 12:21 PM, knapplc said:

That's a good article. I read somewhere that 1990s Nebraska is perhaps the biggest anomaly in all of sports. A team in a tiny state (by population), with no reasonable recruiting base, becomes a national power that not only wins, but routinely demolishes its opponents, most of whom are better situated vis a vis recruiting centers.  The premise was that, based on other schools and how the college football world works, Nebraska shouldn't have been Nebraska. At best they should be a combination of Kansas, Iowa State and another school, like Wyoming or something. 

 

 

I would say Devaney's run in the late 60's to early 70's was more of an anomaly than TO's run in the 90s primarily because of the information, video, etc. of recruits available to the coaches at the time. 

I think there are a couple of reasons the South is dominating.  One would be the coaching.  Take Bob Stoops for example.  He left Kansas State in a lateral move as defensive coordinator to become Florida's defensive coordinator.  Why?  He said the daily schedule was much shorter at Florida than at K State.  Typically, coaches in the South don't have to work as hard or as many hours as they do in the North because they are surrounded by excellent recruits.  Therefore, it's more likely to find the best coaches in the South rather than the North.  Why are the best recruits in the South?  It's the exact same reason that the best hockey recruits are typically found in the North instead of the South.  It's the weather.  More specifically, it's the amount of time as in months young athletes play football in the South when compared to the North.  When one considers the amount of club football played nearly year round in the South, it's of little wonder why those athletes are better prepared for the sport of football because they've simply spent many more hours honing their skills.  Has anyone ever wondered why most of the Bowl games are played in the South?  It's because of the weather and being a more enjoyable experience for the fans.  Well, it's also a more enjoyable experience for most of the players as well.  I know I'd much rather go play catch with my son when it's nice and sunny rather than cold and miserable. 

For a North team to become the next NC winner, I think it will take a couple of things.  First, it will take an experienced staff who has worked together for quite some time.  Second, it will take a staff that is geared to player development.  I don't necessarily think the best athletes are all found in the South.  I just think that they're ahead of most players in the North because of the amount more football they've played prior to college.  Helping the cold weather recruits catch up with the warm weather recruits will be key to leveling the playing field.     

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 7:12 AM, Enhance said:

Perhaps. You don't see many (if any) elite NFL prospects opting to forgo the CFP. Playing for a national championship and the exposure on that level is far more lucrative to a college athlete than the Gator or Insight Bowl. Furthermore, an eight team playoff only increases the potential number of games by one to a possibility of 15 if you're including the CCG. That's the exact number of games the NDSU Bison have played every year given their routine presence in the national title game.

How many NDSU Bison expect to make it into the NFL?  How many have made it into the NFL in the last decade?  15 games in the lower divisions is different than for power 5 D1 athletes because those players are just thrilled to get their education paid for.  The 4 and 5 star recruits in D1 have aspirations of playing in the NFL.  The more games they play the better the odds of getting a permanent injury.  Bosa quit Ohio State when they were definitely in playoff contention.  Let's just call it for what it is.  The only reason the playoff might expand is for one thing and one thing only:  money!  The players with the skills to make it to the next level really don't get any benefit from the windfall.  I'm not sure I buy into the argument that those playing in the playoff benefit much at all from the exposure.  Year in and year out, we see players stock either rise dramatically or fall dramatically based upon how they do at the combine.  Dabo has already said he'd be in favor of going back to the way it was before the playoffs just having the #1 and #2 team play in a bowl game at the end of the year for the NC.  In 2016, Saban hinted that he was in favor of expanding the playoff.  In 2017, he was against it arguing it would diminish the other bowl games.  In 2018, he made the same argument about diminishing the other bowl games.  One could argue he changed his mind simply because of the different situation his team found itself in at the end of the season.  However, I believe there's a bit more to it than that.  Why are Dabo and Saban against expansion?  Is it because it makes it more difficult to win a NC?  Possibly.  Or, is it because they see the tide changing and are afraid more and more of their better athletes will simply decide to skip the games in order to prepare for the draft?  2016 was the beginning of the trend of sitting out games in the post season when Fournette and McCaffrey sat out.  In 2017, that number went from 2 to 10.  In 2018, the number doubled to 20.  See a trend? 

33 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

People have been saying something to this effect for years with every new coaching hire OSU has had. Trouble is they have never been down outside of the very rare single season.

 

Ohio State is like the one single program who has never had a down period in the modern era. 

Most Ohio State fans would not agree with the bolded.  They call them the John Cooper years. 

14 hours ago, huskerinacaveman said:

Just as the title says.  Do we need to have a top 5 class, or classes to achieve success. 

 

Success (for me) is defined by beating who we should, competing for wins against the top tier teams in the conference and being in a position to make playoff appearances. 

 

Does the system allow for top 20-25 classes to have this that sort of success?

Times have changed.  Back in TO's day, I would say no.  His recruiting classes right before the run weren't really highly ranked classes.  However, a lot of things have changed since then.  Heck, back then the best two teams didn't even play each other in the bowl most years because of conference tie-ins with bowls.  In today's day and age especially with talk about expanding the playoff, I'd say you definitely need at least some top 10 classes or need to be very lucky in avoiding injuries and attrition.  Depth becomes a big factor when a playoff is involved.  If it expands to eight teams, it will be an even bigger factor if the ultimate goal is a NC.   

I think if a fan is being honest with themselves, you have to go with either Devaney or Pettit.  They built something.  Cook and Osborne are similar, but they are both behind the top 2 because they inherited a power house and didn't let the wheels fall off.   

4 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

It’s not premature. They’ve never been a good football program that I’m aware of. It’s not relevant to me if they have a few good years or even great years in the future. I’d prefer it if the B1G only added top tier programs. Nebraska and Penn State fit that bill when they were added, as would Oklahoma. I don’t want mediocre or even merely decent programs to be added. 

 

I’ve never looked at the football schedule and thought “Maryland is playing X, I’m gonna have to watch that game.” Unless X = Nebraska.

If the bolded happened, I doubt we'd be in the B1G.  It's been quite a while since most people would consider us in the top tier.  Our last year in the Big 12, Nebraska and Maryland had an almost identical records and both finished just inside the top 25.  Maryland's most recent conference championship is more recent than ours.   

Speaking of eras, we're entering a new one.  We have players who are opting out of bowl games in order to prepare for the NFL draft.  We had a player who quit the team after getting an injury to prepare for the NFL draft.  In the past few years, college players are getting a bit more vocal about how the money is allocated.  If we extend the season by keeping conference championship games and then going to an eight team playoff, it might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.  A few years ago, there was a RB that was encouraged to not even play his junior year of college because the shelf life of a RB in the pros is short.  I have a feeling this will be revisited in the near future.  I never thought I'd see the day where a coach of an amateur sport is paid more than a coach of the same professional support.  Times are a changing, and I believe asking these players to do even more for their schools will cause the breaking point.

18 hours ago, Moiraine said:

@VectorVictor  I don’t think anyone actually thinks the B1G would get rid of Rutgers or Maryland, it’s just that as a fan of football and not basketball, they don’t belong. They aren’t good at football and I don’t like them geographically. 

I think we're being a little premature with the Maryland bashing.  Last year, they had a pretty decent recruiting class.  The coach they just hired is thought to be a great recruiter.  They more than likely get just enough talent into their program to keep most B1G teams honest.  I realize the guy they just hired didn't exactly light the World on fire the last time he was a head coach, but he has spent the last few years under Saban.  In a sense, he's put Bama's offense on the map.

10 hours ago, mrandyk said:

The system is the obvious issue. A one-loss power conference champ missing the playoffs should never happen. Can not believe we are still at 4 teams.

The bolded happened because two P5 conference champs were undefeated along with Notre Dame.  I've always been for an 8 team playoff.  However when we get down to the rat killing, I'd rather see a one loss champ miss the playoffs than see a three loss champ who played in an excessively weak conference make the playoffs.  When one considers why it took so long to get a playoff (too many games, diminish regular season, etc.), I think we're stuck with the current system and four team playoff for quite a bit longer.

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I think I want Texas A&M even less than Texas. They don't bring the $ and attention that Texas does, so it would be even harder to convince me that it's a good idea.

If I got to pick which teams join the B1G, in order of priority:

-Maryland
-Rutgers
+Oklahoma
+Notre Dame
+Iowa State, Kansas, KSU, Missouri
+Oklahoma State
.
.
.
Pittsburgh
.
.
.

Texas
Texas A&M

Notre Dame is the crown jewel.  The B1G should try to land Notre Dame and OU.  Then, they could tell Texass to pound sand. 

When we belonged to the Big 12, there were three blue blood programs.  With an odd number, it stands to reason why it was lopsided.  In the B1G, there are four blue blood programs.  I've always wondered why they put three in one division and one in the other?  If the B1G is successful in getting OU and Texas, this will all work itself out.  If they don't, then it would stand to reason to move Michigan.  At the end of the day, I'd say we're in a good spot if they leave things the way they are.  Winning this division is easier than the other one.  Take Wisconsin last year.  They didn't even have to play a couple of the better teams in the B1G.  If they would have taken care of business in the title game, they were in the playoff. 

13 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

You're all over the place with your argument.

 

Yes, Northwestern had the same conference record as Michigan. But, as you say, Northwestern hadn't played Ohio State. They also hadn't played Penn State. So they had the same conference record but they got it playing a schedule that didn't involve the two other best teams in the conference, so...

 

Regardless, why anyone would WANT a rematch of OSU/Michigan is irrelevant if OSU/Michigan were the two best teams.

If you go back to my first post in this thread, you will read I specifically said two best records.  I didn't say anything about two best teams.  You said I forgot about this year.  I didn't because I specifically said two best records which Northwestern had this year.  Until each and every B1G teams plays one another head-to-head, it's going to be difficult to say who the best two teams are.  Last year, are we sure the two best teams played in the B1G title game?  I mean Wisconsin didn't play either Penn State or Michigan State. 

Arguing whether the two teams in the conference championship need to be the best two teams or have the best conference records really doesn't matter that much to me.  If they change the rules and the format, it just solidifies my thought how they're basically catering to one or two programs in the B1G.  Isn't this one of the major reasons we left the Big 12? 

Washington really didn't have a very good season.  They lost three games all at the hands of teams that finished unranked.  The only team they beat that finished ranked was Utah.  Yet, we're willing to give them a playoff spot because they happened to be the champion of a very weak conference this year?  This is why I have a bit of a problem with this format.  Michigan loses to teams ranked in the top 10.  They stay home.  Washington loses to just about every team they play with a pulse, but they get into the playoff.  If this doesn't diminish the regular season, I don't know what does.  Bama vs. Washington in the first round would pretty much just be giving Bama a bye.

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

Outlined this above (probably while you were typing), but you're forgetting this year - NW wouldn't have played in the 2018 CCG game if it was the two best teams. So, a minimum of 3/7 (~43%) of the match ups being different is fairly significant if you think about it.

 

Just to reiterate, I'm not pining for the 'two best teams' system. I'm only pointing out possible discrepancies based on what happened vs. what may have happened.

Two best teams, two best records; there is a difference.  Northwestern only had one conference loss heading into the title game which was to Michigan.  They beat the same Purdue team that blasted Ohio State.  Michigan is the same team that got drilled by Ohio State one week before the conference title game.  I didn't forget about 2018.  Northwestern had the same conference record as Michigan.  Northwestern hadn't played Ohio State.  I'm not sure why anyone would want to watch a rematch of Ohio State and Michigan when they just played the week before.  This is why I think it would be dumb to change things from how they currently are.

This is what happens when the conference misses out on it's second playoff in a row.  Are we trying to reinvent the wheel here?  Division realignment sounds like a good idea until it doesn't.  College football is cyclical.  Take the Big 12 for example.  When it was first formed, the strength of the conference was in the North.  A little less than a decade later, it was clearly in the South.  Since we've belonged to the B1G, there has only been two years where teams with the best records didn't play in the conference title game.  One was 2012, but that was because of sanctions.  The other was 2016.  In 2016, both Penn State and Ohio State were one loss conference teams while Wisconsin was a two loss team.  It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me to change things.   

1 hour ago, tmfr15 said:

Nebraska is in prime position to rise now. Take an inventory of the league.

 

In the West, Wisky, terrible year; Iowa is Iowa; Purdue, replaces QB; Northwestern replaces QB.

 

In the East, Ohio State replaces coach; Michigan is coming off a soul crushing loss to its rival; Michigan State is not very good; and Penn State replaces QB.

 

It's our time to rise!

Yes to the bolded.  However, it's also going to warm Harbaugh's seat up pretty good if Michigan doesn't take over the East next year.  The next two to three years could be very interesting in the B1G especially if Franklin bolts for USC.

1 hour ago, broganreynik said:

I expect him to be an “offensive analyst” at Texas next year (aka someone to tell Tim Beck he’s not calling the right plays).

 

He’ll be tied to the USC job all year, but Brian Kelly takes the job. Then Urbs subverts the obvious and goes to Florida State. He sees it as a kush job when Dabo goes to Bama.

 

Notre Dame hires Bob Stoops.

 

 

Yep, I can see this happening as well.  Once Dabo leaves the ACC, it will be prime for the taking by Urb. 

1 hour ago, billdozer15 said:

He'll be head coach at Alabama in less than 5 years.....

Urb's been pretty consistent.  He goes to a conference that for the most part has been underachieving with not so marque coaches.  If he's coaching in the next five years, this is how I see it playing out.  Saban retires at Bama, Bama hires Dabo.  Urb goes to Clemson.  The USC job almost fits the bill, but I'm not sure Urb wants to butt heads with Chip year in and year out.

18 hours ago, Enhance said:

It appears one of you is dealing in hypotheticals (8-team playoff with auto-qualfiers) whereas @junior4949 is dealing in the current system. So, yes, a conference champ matters in an auto-qualifying scenario. It doesn't matter as much right now.

 

They really only matter right now if the totality of the season turns the CCG into a play-in game and that's been inconsistent to this point. This is where the article comes into play because two conferences currently face less risk (on paper) in their path to the CFP. Teams are being judged on inconsistent criteria.

 

The committee's current slogan should basically be "it doesn't matter unless it matters." The CFP needs to expand and allow for AQ's if the CCG's are to matter as much again.

At the end of the day, they're going to do what they're going to do.  However, there is a bit of a problem with auto-qualifiers.  It has long been told that the reason it took so long to even get a playoff was because D1 didn't want to diminish the regular season.  If we had auto-qualifiers this year, 10-3 Washington would be in the playoff.  They lost to 7-5 Auburn in the regular season.  Auburn finished 5th in the SEC West.  By putting Washington in the playoff, I would think it would greatly diminish the regular season.  Another reason it took so long to get a playoff was because of the extra games.  By playing a conference title game and then having an eight team playoff, there would be more games for a couple of teams. 

I have no doubt that going to an eight team playoff will be fought tooth and toenail by the Power 5 Commissioners unless there are auto-qualifiers.  Yet, they're still going to have to have a committee that picks the three at-large teams.  The exact same committee that has in the past chose teams in the current four team playoff that didn't even win their conference.  I've long thought an eight team playoff was the best and doing away with conference championship games.  However, I just don't we're going to see it because of butthurt Power 5 Commissioners.  It appears that an eight team playoff is still quite a ways off.

9 minutes ago, Crusader Husker said:

This is Nebraska's fault.  If we smack down the West teams and play in Indy, either we go, or a team beating us will go.  We need to do our part to make the B1G better.  That is why they brought us in.  The people in charge of Nebraska have let us down.  Let's hope we now have the people in place to make this happen!

On the bolded, under the current format?  Not so fast.  Last year, Wisconsin smacked down the West teams and played in Indy.  Guess what?  Neither them nor the team that beat them made it into the playoff.  Considering the most recent teams the B1G has brought into the conference, I'm not sure one could argue it was to make the conference better.  We were brought in for the same reason at Rutgers and Maryland.