Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

dssl

Members
  • Posts

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dssl

  1. I have been hearing this kind of talk from some. Maybe it is wishful thinking from some of those teams but I don't see it happening. IMHO teams will be added to the SEC or B1G iff they improve the payout of the existing members. I just can't Imagine a majority of schools in either of these conferences voting for an expansion that will harm their bottom line.
  2. Not sure that's fair. I mostly trust that this coaching staff knows what they are doing. I think in the past they allowed some complacent or underachieving players to languish on the team without any significant contributions. I'm not sure how many is appropriate to surplus each year, but I can believe it could potentially lead to a winning culture where everyone understands that they need to keep doing everything they can to get better, or they may be replaced. The tricky thing is you don't want to take so many that you need to get rid of guys that can help you win games that you end up losing.
  3. 12 people leaving the team just to accommodate the incoming class, each portal in requires one more portal out, so if they take say 4 more from the portal that ges you to surplus of 16. Sounds brutal, I guess that's the college football world we have entered.
  4. I definitely was only thinking about the gross income, not the net. Obviously the net is harder to figure out, although I would assume that they understood those numbers before making the decision. I definitely agree that geography is a big problem for the USC and UCLA.
  5. I would think a 16 team conference is likely to have a 9 game conference schedule which still leaves 3 non conference games, which shouldn't create any ND scheduling issues. Definitely some teams like to play an easy non conference schedule, but it's not clear to me that the rescent changes will make it harder for Notre Dame to put together a compelling schedule. If a conference gets bigger then 16 it could end up with 10 or 11 conference games at which point it could be more of a problem for Notre Dame schedulers.
  6. Even if Notre Dame stays independent there is nothing stopping an annual USC match up. What they lose is there other PAC rivalries. Some new rivalries will likely form over time. I think the bigger issues are travel distances and time zones.
  7. Exactly. The bottom line is schools like TX and I guess USC as well, pull in allot more revenue from the conference then they recieve, so there is an incentive for both the the marquee programs and the marquee conferences for the move. For TX the move also made sense regionally and rivalry wise, for USC regionally it's not a fit and rivalries not great, but apparently that's less important then money, which may be required to stay competitive in the long run.
  8. Some people think 16 or bigger is important these days because the SEC and the B1G are going to 16. i don't agree, IMHO the SEC and BiG expanded because they thought it would help the leagues teams get more money. The BIG12 expanded for a very different reason. They thought they needed more competition to secure their position as a P5 league , and so they had to overlook the fact that 3 of the new teams are bad for the per team bottom line. The ACC doesn't have any expansion targets(besides Notre Dame) that would improve the per team payout, and they are in no danger of losing their P5 status. So I don't know why you think "Things have changed now"?
  9. For geographic reasons and rivalries WV would much prefer the ACC or the SEC. Obviously they are too small of a market for the SEC. I'm sure WV reached out to the ACC when TX and OU announced they were heading to the SEC. Obviously the ACC turned them down, just like they did before they joined the BIG12. No reason to believe anything has changed.
  10. Mostly agree, except I don't see the SEC going after any ACC teams, unless they can resolve the grant of rights issue first. The SEC is already in a great position , and the potential ACC teams won't move the needle on per team payouts, so I don't think that's a fight worth fighting.
  11. All the remaining BIG12 and PAC teams are exploring there options, asking the B1G and the SEC if they are interested, and if the answer is no then each will try to figure out what is best for them. Very difficult to figure out how it shakes out. Obviously the BIG12 dissolving would be perfect for TX and OU.
  12. Saw some spectacultion that the BIG12 could go after Utah,Colorado,Arizona and Arizona state. Seems like that could make some geographical sense. Obviously that would be the end of the PAC, and the other PAC teams would be left scrambling trying to find a chair before the music stopped.
  13. I would think that TX and OU would have used all available legal avenues to get out of the grant of rights. Given that they didn't even try leads me to believe that they didn't see any hope and be extrapolation the ACC teams are stuck.
  14. Can BYU back out of the BIG12 agreement? How much of a penalty if any would they face? It seems like them being in the PAC makes more sense. And with USC and UCLA leaving you would think the PAC would now be willing to take them.
  15. Personally I really like the idea of a 16 team conference with a nine game schedule, having 3 permanent match ups and play all the other teams every other year. Adding 2 teams with a similar schedule would require a 10 game conference schedule, which most coaches wouldn't like, not that they have all that much say. The bigger problem is the ACC has a grant of rights agreement that runs through 2036, so it's hard to imagine any ACC teams making a move. So what high values teams does that leave? Maybe Oregon? Since they play in a 54,000 seat stadiuim, unless paired with Notre dame I don't think it works. My guess is the B1G and the SEC will stand pat at 16 teams for the foreseeable future., unless Notre Dame wants in.
  16. In 2022 Sark pushed out a bunch of players to make room for a class of I think 33? If you try to predict the class size based on seniors and third year players expected to enter the NFL draft you likely will be predicting too low. Late in the cycle they will find room for anyone that they really need/want. If someone other then Sark throws out a number it's just a wild ass guess.
  17. It's definitely going to be a balancing act that they need to be very careful with. Whenever they add an "extra" player they need to consider who will likely need to leave team and what impact that will have short and longer term on the team. If you can get a guy you think can make a difference, while having someone on the roster who isn't helping much, and doesn't seem to be progressing its an easy call.
  18. It's an interesting question. Now with the only limit being a total of 85 scholarships, Sark could take a bigger class then most expect if he thinks it will improve the team.
  19. Apparently you like to argue. I'll try one last time. Obviously each recruit is different. Different physical and mental makeup, and some end up having more success then there star ratings would imply. My comment relates to probabilities. A higher percentage of 5* O lineman will make it the NFL then 4*, and a higher percentage of 4* will get drafted then 3*. And it's not even close. The star ratings are based on various things which don't always match the evaluation process used by coaches, and some coaches are better at finding and developing under rated players. To point out individual cases isn't the point, the point is for each rating you could use probabilities of figure what percentage of them will be drafted. Clearly some players will over achieve and others will under achieve. There is definitely a correlation between the number of stars and the odds of being drafted. And statistically speaking correlation implies it's predictive.
  20. I love coach Flood, and was definitely not trying to question his evaluations or recruiting, I was only pointing out that someone could wrongly interpret your post as implying stars are not predictive of Oline recruits success.
  21. This seems misleading, it makes it seem like stars don't matter. When you consider there are about 30 5*, 330 4* and 1300 3* each year you realize that there's a strong correlation between stars and success.
  22. Its very encouraging to hear stuff like this from lots of recruits including legacies from other schools. It's very encouraging to hear guys like Gary Patterson talking up Sark. It's very encouraging that Sark is able to attract top coaches, both established and up and coming. Time will tell but it feels like this team is on a rapid upward trajectory.
  23. Conner Williams and Zack Shackelford were 3 star O lineman that proved very capable starters. If Kyle Flood wants them them there is no reason to assume they have no chance of being eventual starters.
  24. Are we done for today? I notice we are already up to #5 on the 247 team recruiting ranking.
  25. Yeah, that seemed odd to me also. I suspect that once they pick where they want to go they want to keep their options somewhat open until they work out an acceptable NIL deal.

Our Affiliation

USATDP_Logo.png

Quick Links

×
×
  • Create New...