Recent Comments
How does his film compare to Sean Glennon's film from a handful of years ago? (This isn't meant to start a whole SG discourse, but he is the last real pro-style QB we have seen come through Blacksburg that has seen the field enough to make comparisons). I would imagine that Sean was an accurate & 'smart' QB coming out of HS and had a good highlight reel. I know that the intangibles are the real difference between the two, but it would be interesting to hear from someone that was familiar with SG coming out of high school.
Its hard as a Hokie fan to imagine success that isn't behind a talented mobile QB. Druck is the only exception I have seen (and its hard to call him 'smart'!). Trust me......I want to believe!
Sorry. Wait-we still have a hoops team?
#ALLMAROONEVERYTHING
Absolutely. That's the kind of kid that can strive under a Beamer led team.
I believe THIS sums it up:
These were the best ones. 2007-2009.
Al Clark / Nick Sorenson
Bryan Randall / Marcus Vick
Sean Glennon / Tyrod Taylor
Logan Thomas / Mark Leal (semi-imagined)
We will always find someone else to argue for, regardless of how logical it is.
The line will not be the problem.
Regardless of who wins the starting job, the line has gotta give them more time.
I think he's still on the Panthers roster. But it didn't take Carolina long to realize they'd made a mistake since they took Cam Newton the following year. So essentially Clausen was a wasted 2nd round pick.
This doesn't sound so bad. Means he pretty much stayed where he was in the NFL's eyes from before the Senior Bowl.
He's gonna sit, Like Tyrod has been. But hopefully he gets to develop further and get better and then get an opportunity later.
It seems there are three sides to this argument.
1. Those who agree that the NCAA can punish schools for fans tweeting recruits trying to get them to go to their school.
2. Those who disagree with point #1.
3. Those who disagree with point #1 thinking it means you can't tweet at a recruit saying "Good game Bob, you're a helluva footballer."
The only simple thing about this is that a school isn't recruiting you for your undergrad, so that's still a decision you have to reach, they are pursuing you for something you are extremely talented in already.
I agree with everything you said except this. I think this is a slippery slope. yes, these kids are being recruited to play a sport for the university but they are classified "student athletes" for a reason. The primary goal of the kid may be to go to the NFL but the primary responsibility of the university must be to educate the student. providing the athletic venue to get that kid to reach his goal is important but secondary.
Is Clausen even on a team anymore?
Do they really still fax them? Jeez.
Also, what happens when someone buys a ticket off of another person online or personally? How would the NCAA keep track of that without id tracking on the ticket itself? Is the original buyer the booster or the person who actually watched the game?
It simply can't be done this way. Too many holes in this rule to make it anything more than wishful thinking for the NCAA.
Heard this over the weekend as well...
A representative for TEAMPIE who attended the Senior Bowl practice week, had this to say about Hokie quarterback, Logan Thomas..."At TEAMPIE we're all about awesome...I mean, it's pie, c'mon. Thomas would fit right into our system today, simply because he's so awesome. Cause, you know...pie is awesome.
Any purchase of season tickets then yes I agree. Students I agree but I think students have private rights as well that don't automatically mean they can be legally considered a booster. For example, a grad student that went to UNC as undergrad and has been a UNC fan all his life, then went to VT for a Masters and watched a game via student ticket. Is he a VT booster or a UNC booster?
So you are saying that the definition of a booster is geographical? So for example I live overseas but buy a ticket to a VT game then I am not a VT booster? Or if I lived in VA and was a VT fan but bought a ticket to LOLUVA game I am a booster of LOLUVA?
No. It can't be like this and doesn't work this way. The NCAA can say in their rules people are boosters as broadly as they wish but that doesn't mean that people are or that they can enforce that. And simply saying that someone is a booster because they bought a ticket automatically enters you into a binding contract with obligations and liability to the NCAA is not logical. It can't enforce this because no one has actually signed anything with the NCAA.
There are a few things impacting this process, first is the availability of material. With our digitized life now, there is film available on the internet on almost any level of sports to be evaluated, especially in leagues that depend on putting their participants into college programs to make their money. This allows coaches to be so much more aware of budding talent out there. These feel good stories also seem to always catch the media's attention too so finding out about this kind of recruiting is also much more common than back when news came by way of the TV/newspaper. The second is the programs realizing the longer they have contact with a potential recruit, the more likely they are to build a relationship that goes beyond just recruiting for a sport. (See football camps in the summer hosted by team coaches that give them contact with kids down to the elementary school level) Third is the investment by parents into these younger and younger advanced leagues. I recently had a conversation with a guy that told me that he sat down and calculated how much he had spent on his daughter's soccer development between elementary school to her junior year of high school, and it summed up to $65,000.00 between travel teams and tournament costs and paying a coach(es). Fortunately his daughter earned a full scholarship for soccer to play at UConn, so it was worth it. The only simple thing about this is that a school isn't recruiting you for your undergrad, so that's still a decision you have to reach, they are pursuing you for something you are extremely talented in already.
Here's the thing about recruiting them when they are young. It's high risk and high reward. You could pick out a diamond in the rough before anyone notices or even a star player that everyone sees and then they now have their commitment. The risk comes with the fact that they can still decommit just like anyone else but they can also screw up. I had a friend who had a full scholarship to play soccer and was offered it sometime around her Freshman year of high school. By her Junior year, the school pulled the scholarship offer from her for screwing up, making poor grades and other disciplinary issues. These things happen. 4 years is a long time. Just look at the athletes in college. In 4 years, many of them screw up in some way, just some are worst than others. Kids at that age go to college camps and showcase tournaments to get these offers so the fault isn't on the schools. The recruiting process is only a small part to the training to be an athlete at the next level.
If you could some how count as a Clemson booster. Would it be worth the one-time $100 donation to their athletic fund? That would certainly qualify you as a dangerous individual.
Anyone who has ever purchased a season ticket to a program is considered a booster of that program. So, no, your ticket to see Iowa play Nebraska doesn't qualify you as an Iowa booster, but if you lived in Iowa and decided to get your football fix by going to all their home games then it would.
Since it is "season tickets", you could argue that anyone who bought a student season ticket while in school would count, which I'd imagine covers a lot more people than you expect. By that definition, I'd say probably about 90% or more of the people on this site are considered boosters.
But then the NCAA would be about the students and not about the money, and we all know that isn't true.
Absolutely. Throw some acoustic walls on the dome walls around Lane. Oh god the sound would melt the walls.