Illinois Hokie's Recent Comments
Of course you can. But I live in the midwest and can't find Devil's Backbone or Starr Hill here. I always load up on a few cases when I come home. Likewise when I go to Denver for work, I usually pick up some Wynkoop and Great Divide, because I likewise can't get those in Illinois. Craft beer is still very much regional.
Took an unofficial to VT on September 7. Possibly liked the facilities and campus, and now likes the offense to be installed? Wiggins can recruit now, yes?
For the record, if one of them is going to come back and be productive, my money is on Juice. I think Shai McKenzie is shaping up to be the second coming of George Bell.
This should be an absolute no-brainer for Sam. You've got Muschamp, a defensive-minded coach who tanked Florida, or one of the best spread offense gurus in Justin Fuente. I mean, I can't blame him for taking a visit; being a P5-level recruit happens once in a lifetime for about 1% of the general population. But logically, there's zero reason to pick USCe over VT right now if you're a skill position player.
Basically just playing the odds.
Shai has had two ACL blowouts and did not look good at all when he came back. I'd have to imagine a knee that's been surgically reconstructed twice probably isn't going to hold up for three more seasons of significant playing time.
Marshawn has struggled to keep his weight down since day one on campus. After this long of a rehab, I'd imagine there's a danger of him having to come a long way back to get into game shape, during which time he's already been eclipsed by McMillian as an established TB1, and will give McClease a fair shot to surpass him in spring practice. Also, Marshawn is more of a power back, and I don't think Fuente runs a lot of power. (I could be wrong, though. I watched exactly 2 quarters of Memphis football this season.)
Between the two of them, I feel odds are we probably won't see both return to form and have anything more than garbage carries. A little more than a hunch since I can articulate the reasoning, but if you're looking for me to point to anything concrete, I don't have any sort of definitive proof.
Usually, when I say LOL, I didn't really LOL.
I really LOLed.
I'm trying to figure out if the guy in that first gif is actually working anything. All the rest of these are priceless.
When ESPN made it known that BuckyHodgesRogersRODGERS is 6'7"
You forgot McClease. I think it's a fair bet that McKenzie or Williams doesn't ever make it back (perhaps both), but McClease supposedly has the goods.
I'm guessing Choppin Wood by the JUGGS is right, then. There's zero reason for a defensive recruit to decommit based on the Fuente hire, because unless Cornell was your recruiter, nothing has changed for your playing situation.
"Now this might tickle a little..."
In all seriousness, the technology was pretty awesome. Just a silicone pill with a thermometer and a transmitter. You hold a handheld receiver to the small of the player's back and get an accurate reading of internal core temperature. Then after the natural course of things, the player just LOLUVAs the pill out.
That would make sense too.
OLB. Wonder if this is a casualty of Cornell being released.
I enjoyed the Purdue game from start to finish. One of the only games this season that was just plain fun to watch.
|
10 years 7 months
# | Virginia Tech Football Recruiting: 2016 WR Phillip Patterson Commits to the Hokies, Again Still hear it in my head every time we take it to the shade.
As far as technology integration, I know we were one of the first programs to utilize the internal temperature monitors for players. I know that's one anecdote in a vacuum, but I've always had the feeling that even under Weaver, we were embracing the cutting edge of sports technology.
Did someone say dickey?
I'm not even certain the passing game is too complex. Brewer's struggles in passing seemed to be almost entirely arm related. He could usually find the open man (and there was almost always an open man, a testament to the passing design) but he couldn't always deliver the ball on time and on target. The problem, in my mind, is that there was not equal dedication to designing and sustaining a run game. Lefty was all about creating and exploiting a mismatch in the passing game, but I never saw that happen in the run game.
The best thing I can say about Lefty in the run game is his full embrace of the removal of the "no pushing the runner" rule. It's obvious that Lefty and Searels coached the offense, specifically the OL, to always respond when they see our ball carrier get stood up. The instinct of all our OL is the surge ahead behind our back and drive the pile forward. This was best evidenced against UVA since it went for like ten yards, but they've been doing it all season. And kudos to Lefty and Searels for understanding that he rule change allowed for us to almost always pick up extra yards. But that's really more of an attitude, not a specific design of the running game. I think it will benefit Fuente, because unless explicitly instructed otherwise, our OL will continue to push the runner forward in a scrum. But as far as actually designing a running game to complement the passing attack, Lefty fell short.
While rankings have always been ingrained in the sport of college football, I do believe we have started down a path toward them becoming obsolete, if not extinct. I believe within a decade, the playoffs will expand to 8 teams, with each of the P5 conference champions getting an automatic bid. There will then be three wildcard spots, which will be selected via committee, and then all eight teams will be seeded by the same committee. So while polls could continue to exist in that selection process, the guarantee of five conference champions making the playoffs would remove some of the value of polls. Basically, polls would become a "best of who's left," and then finally, a poll of the eight playoff teams. The traditional AP top 25 would have diminished value in the system I think we're ultimately moving toward.
|
10 years 7 months
# | Virginia Tech Football Recruiting: 2016 WR Phillip Patterson Commits to the Hokies, Again The only spread terminology I'm interested in hearing is, "TOUCHDOWN TECH!"
If I understand it correctly, the NCAA will always make money from every bowl game, because the people who organize the bowl have to pay the NCAA to host the sanctioned bowl game. So even if a bowl loses money, the NCAA makes money by that bowl being played. If individual bowls lose money, they'll fold (and some have), but there will usually be another organization somewhere that thinks they can be profitable in the venture and will take a defunct bowl's spot.
The bowl organizers can lose money, the schools themselves can (and often do) lose money through contractual obligation of a certain threshold of ticket sales, but the NCAA always comes out ahead in the deal.
Not trying to be argumentative. Just saying I think the ACC has found a nice compromise. Like I said above, you definitely can advocate for a system where you can't select a team with a worse record over a team with a better one, but then I think the ACC is going to have a tougher time securing bowl tie-ins. Just being honest, there are some teams that are just not attractive to selection committees, and Pitt is near the top of that list. Duke, likewise, won't bring fans to wherever they go bowling. We have some programs with some shitty, shitty fan support. But if you strongarm bowls into taking Pitt over NC State because they had one more win, that's how you find it real hard to maintain your bowl affiliations.
This is a better system than the ACC had in the middle 2000s. You can argue it can be improved to guarantee teams with better records a better bowl, but doing that is going to have some negative consequences.
Well then, let's just leave it at this: I think you're wrong, and I think the smart fans are the ones who realize, rules are rules. The agreement in place has protections that guarantee you can only fall so far in the selections based on your final record. It doesn't matter if your coach is retiring, or if your dog died, or if you really, really wanna go to a different bowl game, gosh darn it. If you want a better bowl game, you win enough games to get you to that better bowl game. If Pitt wants an elite bowl, they better win 10-11 games, because they have no curb appeal to the bowl selection committees. If we want a second-tier bowl, we better damn well finish with a second-tier record.
In the scenario you propose, FSU or Clemson would always be the second bowl selection, regardless of record.
NM I'm an idiot.