User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6562 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
That's not quite true. They didn't completely remove their offer, they wanted him to grayshirt, he said no. But at the end of the day that amounts to about the same thing since I would guess most players say no anyways.
What I mean is, they do that way so they can say with a straight face that they still wanted the player. As if they think we will believe that.
Schools all the time will tell players - heads up - your offer is conditional. Or, heads up - we've got two slots left, and we are targeting four guys. Saban didn't do that here.
That's uncalled for on Miles' part, but I think Charlie Weis might be worse.
Stanford takes away scholarship offer...
Stanford takes away scholarship offer...
If I'm parsing the article correctly, it's because he wasn't admitted on an academic basis. That's hardly the same as "this guy has more stars, so we're rescinding our offer."
"We can't understand it. Nobody is telling us anything. The coaches say the admissions process is secretive, and they can't ask about it. If it's the curriculum, we'd like to know. (Head coach) David Shaw said he was surprised. It sounds like there's something else under the table, like they might have found somebody else they like."
And this dude has been committed for a while, it wasn't like Stanford didn't know about his academics (4.0 GPA and 26 ACT) before they decided two weeks ago to not offer him a scholarship.
This is probably the case. Georgia Tech had a somewhat similar issue with a recruit and the football staff was seemingly kept out of the loop as to whether or not the kid would actually be accepted until the last possible moment.
I read the Charlie Weis statement, he is NFL garbage. Amazingly, he has never won a thing as a HC, his NFL schemes were thoroughly dismantled by college players and college coaches. His 3rd year ND team was one of the worst offenses in the +150 year history of the sport.
Reading his comment didn't surprise me in the least, if you know his resume at the college level, his comments are consistent with his track record. That he is trending from Notre Dame to Kansas as a HC is all you need to know. Next stop, Bengals OC.
First, it's nice pub for the SEC.
Second, one thing I find really insufferable is Big Ten whining about anything. Bielema whining about Urban is another example. If this shuts up Big Ten sanctimoniousness, please, sign me up.
Third, the Big Tenners who bash the SEC don't understand why this actually hurts them. In the past, the SEC would oversign in part because so many players seemed like risks, usually for grade reasons. These kids wound up in JUCO typically. So, the SEC would take a couple of players more than the Big Ten would, but really the advantage was overstated, as many players never made it to campus.
Now, the SEC just focuses more on the "sure things." This is a battle the Big Ten won't win. Focusing less on the risky players means whatever chances the Big Ten has of recruiting in the talent rich South just took another hit. So, nice work, Big Ten.
And that just breaks me up inside.
So you're whining about whining.
If this shuts up Big Ten sanctimoniousness, please, sign me up.
The sanctimony is justified.
In the past, the SEC would oversign in part because so many players seemed like risks, usually for grade reasons. These kids wound up in JUCO typically. So, the SEC would take a couple of players more than the Big Ten would, but really the advantage was overstated, as many players never made it to campus.
Proof of this assertion?
Now, the SEC just focuses more on the "sure things." This is a battle the Big Ten won't win. Focusing less on the risky players means whatever chances the Big Ten has of recruiting in the talent rich South just took another hit. So, nice work, Big Ten.
That's possible, but this B1G fan doesn't really care. I'm for more equitable treatment of recruits regardless of what it means for any conference. You might consider thinking in those terms rather than what it means for your tribe (sanctimony!). I still have doubts as to whether the trend will catch on the in the factories of SEC West, but we'll see. I hope it does. Also, my suspicion is that the trend toward four-year scholies might increase the emphasis on the quality of the degree, which, obviously, won't help the SEC.
The bottom line is that the Big Ten still cares about football and wants to be viewed at successful at it, but that fandom has adjusted based on lack of on field success. Hence the talk of a Big Ten degree being SO valuable, and Delany pretending his schools don't have an element of "football factory" to them, either. Hence the comments about Southerners being stupid, and so forth. It's still a rivalry, it's just one the Big Ten isn't very good at, hence the invocation of all these other issues. And when SEC schools still win working under the same "morality" as viewed by the Big Ten, well that's going to be awfully embarrassing for the Big Ten all over again.
As Auburn's in the SEC West, has been bashed as a "football factory" before, and has had more recent success than any Big Ten school, I'd be surprised if other SEC West schools didn't follow suit. I'd imagine the two holdouts would be Saban and Ole Miss, based on my intuition about Hugh Freeze.
I've found much of what prompts outrage is really initially prompted by something else. I have little doubt that if the Big Ten had won a couple of titles recently, we wouldn't be talking about oversigning.
Please.
Where are these comments? Are you referring to academic reputations? Do you dispute that the B1G has better academic institutions than the SEC? FWIW, I was born, raised and educated in Mississippi, so I don't think Southerners are stupid. I think a good number of SEC football fans are bizarro tribalists and strangers to objectivity, but that's another matter.
And when SEC schools still win working under the same "morality" as viewed by the Big Ten, well that's going to be awfully embarrassing for the Big Ten all over again.
On the contrary, I'd have far more respect for the SEC if they succeed under those conditions. It remains to be seen whether they actually rise to B1G's standards and are able to continue winning once there.
I have little doubt that if the Big Ten had won a couple of titles recently, we wouldn't be talking about oversigning.
I understand that you need to feel that way.
NYCTigersfan. This is as insightful a comment as I've seen. Very true.
Oh please....
I assume FSU will forthwith be announcing replacement of WVU on its schedule with the most attractive Div 14 opponent it can find on this notice.
And yes, this constitutes criticism by a person who doesn't like West Virginia, a/k/a whining.
Guess again.
Assuming things remain fairly stable from here on out (there are very sketchy rumors the Big 12 is considering raiding the ACC), Memphis being reunited with Louisville and Cincinnati should give that program a boost as those had been 2 of their top 3 rivals. It's been a while but back before the original Big East-Conference USA raid, Memphis actually had a fairly good football program.
Looks like the Big Ten is getting into that SEC business.
Just make sure that check doesn't bounce before you let 'em go, boys.
Do teams typically revoke offers from guys who haven't committed?
Dot your i's, and cross your t's, but don't expect anything until you sign away your freedom for at least a year.
But I do agree with you that the ACC could use FSU and Miami back to form.
Yes. It's just another human interest story. It's only noteworthy to you because it's your high school. If it was from East Podunk you wouldn't give it special attention.
Killjoy. Sheesh, lighten up, will ya?
I actually would give it at least some attention, because even if Duke Johnson hadn't gone to the same school I did, I still root for Miami as my second favorite team (behind Louisville), and Staples wrote an solid column about how Golden is achieving recruiting success in the face of the investigation and likelihood of sanctions. Johnson was an interesting dimension to that story, but hardly the whole thing.
http://espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/story/_/id/7577881/tcu-horned-frogs-football-players-arrested-drug-sweep
Iowa never lied and he wasn't a commit. Iowa never assured him that he had a scholarship. He sat on a scholarship offer for months, all he had to do was commit. They let him know about the numbers. He never gave them a commit. When another RB committed a week before signing day, Shaw was told that they were revoking the offer.
Looks like the Big Ten is getting into that SEC business.
An SEC team would just have signed both of them and three more RBs, bringing their roster size to 92. Seven players mysteriously gone by August.
More or less what happened. A week before signing day.
Do teams typically revoke offers from guys who haven't committed?
Its a game of musical chairs. If you have 16 scholarships, you can't just offer them to 16 guys and cross your fingers and wait till signing day when you land 4 of them. Sometimes teams are upfront about it, and sometimes they're not.
Makes more sense then ####### Memphis.
At this point, isn't it easier listing schools that aren't in the Big East?
*gut laugh*
Tennessee, maybe.
As an Arkansas fan, of course I'm appalled at what's been revealed the last week or so ... but not surprised. Like the old fable about the snake (or was it a scorpion?) who fatally stings the benefactor it's begged to carry it across a raging river, or something like that, we knew what he was when we hired him. Well, we mostly knew what he was; some of what's come out is pretty damned sleazy, even for him. I exulted in the team's relative success the past season or two, but I never, ever got over my unease about Petrino. I'm sure I was far from alone.
Only for a couple of hours in the fall of 2001, just about a month before I moved to Alabama. I grew up in Arkansas & lived there for all but about 4 years till I was 42, but I'm from (& went to college in) another corner of the state, then lived in Little Rock/North Little Rock for most of my aduthood, & I was never much for traveling. Only time I've ever seen the Razobacks play in person was in Auburn (& a glorious game it was), which is a lot closer to me here in Montgomery than Fayetteville is to LR.
In any event, at least a couple of Primates went to school in Fayetteville & may well still be in that area. Not sure they've ever participated in this thread, though. Anyone remember any names?
It's probably the biggest Rutgers OOC game since I've been a fan. I love that you guys picked a team like that. Cuse also gets props for scheduling up and going to Mizzou. Obviously Petrino getting the boot significantly increases your odds of winning that game. It will be extremely fun to watch that undersized, ultra quick D take on the remnants of Petrino's offense.
Gladwell will grind Whitlock's gonads to make his bread
Defense Counsel just had a rather bizarre press conference. Aside from explaining why Jerry didn't testify (it was the late news of one of his adopted son's coming forward), he pretty much gave a blanket waiver of appellate issues, at least publicly. Blowing kisses to the judge and jury.
final score: Jury 45 Sandusky 3.
* - No, not including him.
Otherwise, I'm still not sure how I feel about this.
The semis are to be one on New Year's Eve and one on New Years Day. playing one of the semi finals on New Year's Eve primetime is just dumb.
With 4 16-team conferences / 2 divisions each, they effectively will have an 8 team playoff.
A selection committee sacrifices a little bit of transparency in the selection process for a lot of flexibility in how to pick teams on a year to year basis and accountability. (And I'd argue that the current system is even more transparent than the BCS, given that half the computer polls were proprietary and many of the human votes were secret ballot.)
Four conference champions is a horrible idea that would get hit by a lawsuit from everybody not in the Pac 12/Big 12/Big 10/SEC immediately.
As far as the ACC splitting up, I concur. Its members would have more collective value, and probably make more money, if the conference dissolved and the Big 12, Big Ten and SEC were left to divide the carcass (the Pac doesn't figure into this for obvious geographic reasons). Imagine these additions:
* SEC: Virginia Tech and N.C. State. Two fairly large states, complementing its recent additions of Missouri and Texas. Yes, the SEC would prefer to have Virginia and North Carolina, but both would be poor cultural fits for the SEC. They work better as part of the...
* Big Ten: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and either Duke or Georgia Tech. All are AAU members, fitting the Big Ten model (and unlike Nebraska, none appear ready to be tossed out anytime soon). They give the Big Ten clout along the mid-Atlantic. The Big Ten would probably prefer Tech -- currently undervalued while saddled with the weak ACC football brand -- but may have to settle for Duke in order to woo UNC (though threatening to take Rutgers and Tech in place of UNC/Duke could scare Chapel Hill into dumping Duke). Also in the mix...
* Big 12: Florida State and Clemson, for sure; beyond this, things get trickier, depending upon how big the Big 12 wants to get (14? 16?). If Duke is shoehorned into the Big Ten, Georgia Tech heads to the Big 12 (if Tech goes Big Ten, Duke stays in a diminished ACC or a Big East/ACC mix). Post-scandal Miami is an uncertainty, as it likely won't be the Miami of old anytime soon. Should the Big 12 choose to go to 16, other candidates include Syracuse and Pittsburgh, along with Louisville. (Notre Dame may join the Big 12 for most of its non-football programs and for football scheduling agreements, but it will never become a full-time member.)
Wake Forest and Boston College will almost certainly end up in that aforementioned ACC/Big East mix, as might Miami and Duke.
No kidding. I foresee me fighting the same fight every New Year's Eve and losing almost every time. Nice of them to make one of the games nearly unwatchable for me and I assume many others.
Honestly, with any kind of playoffs and the massive, unappealing realignment, I'm not sure how much I'll care. I have a feeling that much of what made CFB so interesting to me has been lost.
I understand the feeling. The realignment has really taken away a lot of what I loved about the sport and severely dampened my enthusiasm already. I used to read about every team in the Big East. Now that WVU is in the Big 12, I don't read about anyone else and I'm not sure how invested I'm going to be in the rest of the conference. Maybe that's not the way most fans get into the game, but it was a big part of it for me and I don't think that will hold up.
I am going to wait and see to figure out how I feel about the playoffs. I think four may be low enough to preserve the intensity of the regular season, but I wouldn't be surprised if it took something away.
Four teams is the number I like. I would have preferred a "plus one" system but this is close enough.
I would be furious with any conference champs model. That would asically eliminate any significance from out of conference games and a good OOC game with real consequences is always intriguing for me as a fan.
I don't forsee any superconferences model coming to be. The big reward for forming one is a national TV network and the conferences are almost all locked into long term TV deals now. Also, and more significant, IMO, is that the middle and lower tier BCS conference teams need to fatten up on weaker opponents to maintain their popularity. Relegating half of FBS teams would be terrible for the popularity of CFB. The BCS teams need the WACs and MACs just like the Yankees need teams like the Royals. I expect any model to theoretically incorporate the non BCS conferences while giving them an almost impossible path to the championship. I think that would be the option to best placate fans.
Completely agree. It already feels like the new changes have made good OOC games less likely. The more the sport gets away from those, the less I will care about it.
Not a fan of the playoffs, but I guess the time had come for it to happen. Hopefully super-conferences are out of the picture for the time being.
Selection Committe - not a fan of a bunch of experts in a closed room making decisions where millions of dollars are on the line. Don't like it in my politics or football.
Neutral site semis - I must be the only person with these concerns. It's a lot to ask a fan base to potentially travel to two long distance games in 7-10 days. Are the participating schools going to have to buy the 10K+ allotment of tickets for these games like traditional bowl games? Is this system going to lead to empty semi-final games and/or the championship game attended like the super bowl (where a majority of the tickets are sold way in advance and the fans of the respective teams aren't really the ones driving the ticket sales)? Something doesn't feel right about this.
Non-power conference - this hurts them even more right? In the past it was practically impossible for Boise, TCU, or Utah to play for the MNC, but at least they auto qualified to a big payout BCS-level bowl. Now there is no good reason for the Orange Bowl or Sugar Bowl to select one of these "lesser" known teams. You're going to see a lot more WTF Va Tech/Michigan big bowl selections; a 2-3 loss big name team will always be more appealing than an undefeated #5 ranked MWC team.
12 year deal - that's great, but what kind of flexibility do they have to tweak the system over that span?
I hadn't thought of this but it's an excellent point. I guess it all depends how the payouts work: whether they are entirely dependent on who qualifies or not. I'm guessing it's likely to funnel more cash to the BCS conferences than previously.
I can see how a selection committee could be the best or worst solution. The current BCS system just got repeatedly tweaked until it matched the polls and the poll voters don't really take their job seriously.
Any selection committee should be required to stand behind their decision. Make the members public and force them to make a real defense of the selections. I want to see them sweating in a press conference.
Great question. Teams are already losing millions of dollars on BCS games, and not just the smaller programs, I've read some bigger names have taken hits on these games too. If you ask them to foot the bill for two games, the system is just stealing more money from those schools.
The selection committee could end up being better than the latest incarnation of the BCS, but I still don't like the process. You touched on the problem with the BCS; it wasn't that the BCS was routinely bad at it's job, the problem was when it didn't align with the poll voters, the BCS was always blamed not the voters.
However the committee functions, there needs to be some sort of computer ranking; old BCS, an RPI, etc, just to compare and contrast to the committee.
RE #386... I appears at least one media member has some of the concerns I do about attendance, travel, cost for fans, etc.
No disagreement here. I would like to add that I think the men's basketball committee does a good job. Whenever the seedings deviate from the polls I almost invariably find the committee to do a better job.
If I understand it correctly, no conference/team are locked out. All conferences (and ND) were represented in the President's meetings, and all will have a chance to be selected to the final 4.
It's to my understanding the little guys either voted for this, or were drug along begrudgingly.
I *would* agree with this... but it seems completely irrelevant when Teams choose their own OOC schedule. There are not enough meaningful OOC games to get any sort of handle on interconference strengths. It's hopeless considering the fraction of OOC games that are just patsies.
This *could* be a strength of the 4xsuperconference system. Instead of 3 random patsies, LSU has to play 2 games against the B1G/Pac16/Big16, rotating.
I do think that this kind of major transformation of college football will only come with the downfall of the NCAA itself.
Presumably any suit would have be some breach of contract?? With who, the NCAA?
Huh? B10/P12 are the ones who initially pushed for on-campus games and that idea was shot down, primarily by the SEC/B12 who is more interested in protecting the status quo where they get to play all their bowl games within their footprint. After the on-campus idea was shot down, then the B10/P12 started the Rose Bowl stuff.
When the Utah AG/Senators were sabre rattling about suing the BCS, they claimed it was an illegal monopoly that restricted free trade.
Yeah, I have no idea where Staples came up with that howler.
But at the end, the Big Ten and Pac-12 completely caved and accomplished literally nothing beneficial to their leagues ... from which one can only infer that their primary motivating factor, by far, was the money a playoff would generate.
No serious person can believe the committee will pick the right four teams (*) other than by sheer accident.
Meh.
(*) And be free from relentless SEC stacking and politicking. The last month of the season is going to be filled up with Gary Danielson and the rest of the SEC lackeys lobbying for a second/third SEC team.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main