Amazon has whacked our affiliate account. Hosting Donations/Commitments $2063 of $1920 (Sept 13/18). In Hand $1466 (Lump sum payments minus paypal graft). Paypal Donation Link Here

2018 NCAA Football Thread

Everything else!

Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k

Post Reply
GungHo
Posts: 3648
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:15 am
Location: Second star to the right

Re: 2018 NCAA Football Thread

Post by GungHo » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:01 am

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:31 pm
Pyperkub wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:18 pm
Crazy. 5'11 qb's make far less than the average baseball player, and have far shorter careers.
His baseball stardom is far from a sure thing though. And the A's are only guaranteeing him like $4.7M right now.

[MLB] Scouting grades: Hit: 50 | Power: 50 | Run: 70 | Arm: 40 | Field: 55 | Overall: 50
Haha! I had no idea he was 'officially listed' at 5'11. No way that dude is an inch over 5'8. But yeah that was my thinking too.

Had no idea about his MLB grade though...did he get the high draft position on potential then? And crazy how that speed, which is so dominant on the football field, only translates to a 70 in baseball(I'm assuming those #s are out of 100). And $4.7 mil sure seems a pretty penny to give up but if he doesn't need it I guess it's good to be able to walk away from it. Yeah boras is his agent.

Edit: I did see the clip where Kingsbury said he'd use the #1 pick in the draft on him. And well, look what we have here...😁
OR
cry in a corner that the world has come to a point where you have to pay for imaginary shit.

-Hiccup

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 45568
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: 2018 NCAA Football Thread

Post by LawBeefaroni » Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:36 am

70 is high for speed. That would be considered a "speedster" but not an elite base stealer (Billy Hamilton speed is probably an 80).

It's a 20 - 80 scale (yeah, I know). 50 still right on the middle so his 50s are average.

Players are graded on a 20-80 scale for future tools -- 20-30 is well below average, 40 is below average, 50 is average, 60 is above average and 70-80 is well above average.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 11244
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: 2018 NCAA Football Thread

Post by ImLawBoy » Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:31 am

GungHo wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:50 pm
ImLawBoy wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:14 pm
Scuzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:06 pm
ImLawBoy wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:24 pm
Seems to me this year didn't do much to support the "expand the playoffs" argument, at least if your goal is to truly find the best team. I don't think there's much reasonable argument that Clemson and Alabama were the two best teams this year (in that order).
You don't think after watching Clemson dismantle Alabama that maybe Ohio State or even Notre Dame might have given them a battle? Well, Notre Dame looks better considering what Clemson did to Alabama.
Not even a little bit.
Disagree about tOSU. Yeah they shit the bed against Purdue but that was a pretty darn good team outside of that. They struggled a game or 2 otherwise but found a way to win and when they played the 'big games' they were excellent.
They didn't just shit the bed against Purdue - they got taken to the woodshed. And it's not one of those games where fluky turnovers gave them the win against a team with better statistics. There was just one OSU turnover, and Purdue put up over 500 yards on them. (And this is a Purdue team that won its last game to get bowl eligible, and then set the record for most points given up in a half in an FBS bowl.)

Looking at other "big" games, they managed to beat Penn State, but didn't look great doing it (gave up nearly 500 yards of offense). They beat MSU in a game that set the sport of football back 40 years - neither team looked remotely good. Then they got lucky to get past Maryland when Maryland's QB short armed an open receiver on a 2 point conversion to win the game (again, giving up over 500 yards of offense). As you know, you can't take a team seriously if they struggle with Maryland. ;)

I'm pretty sure Maryland was their last regular season game - I certainly don't recall any others.

Anyway, my point isn't that OSU wasn't a good team. They were flawed, but they were good. They did not belong in the playoff, though, and would have been run out of the stadium against either Clemson or Alabama.
We had subs. It was crazy

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 18609
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California
Contact:

Re: 2018 NCAA Football Thread

Post by Pyperkub » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:02 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:31 am
GungHo wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:50 pm
ImLawBoy wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:14 pm
Scuzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:06 pm
ImLawBoy wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:24 pm
Seems to me this year didn't do much to support the "expand the playoffs" argument, at least if your goal is to truly find the best team. I don't think there's much reasonable argument that Clemson and Alabama were the two best teams this year (in that order).
You don't think after watching Clemson dismantle Alabama that maybe Ohio State or even Notre Dame might have given them a battle? Well, Notre Dame looks better considering what Clemson did to Alabama.
Not even a little bit.
Disagree about tOSU. Yeah they shit the bed against Purdue but that was a pretty darn good team outside of that. They struggled a game or 2 otherwise but found a way to win and when they played the 'big games' they were excellent.
They didn't just shit the bed against Purdue - they got taken to the woodshed. And it's not one of those games where fluky turnovers gave them the win against a team with better statistics. There was just one OSU turnover, and Purdue put up over 500 yards on them. (And this is a Purdue team that won its last game to get bowl eligible, and then set the record for most points given up in a half in an FBS bowl.)

Looking at other "big" games, they managed to beat Penn State, but didn't look great doing it (gave up nearly 500 yards of offense). They beat MSU in a game that set the sport of football back 40 years - neither team looked remotely good. Then they got lucky to get past Maryland when Maryland's QB short armed an open receiver on a 2 point conversion to win the game (again, giving up over 500 yards of offense). As you know, you can't take a team seriously if they struggle with Maryland. ;)

I'm pretty sure Maryland was their last regular season game - I certainly don't recall any others.

Anyway, my point isn't that OSU wasn't a good team. They were flawed, but they were good. They did not belong in the playoff, though, and would have been run out of the stadium against either Clemson or Alabama.
The tOSU squad which showed up against Purdue also showed up against UW in the 4th Quarter. If UW's receivers could have caught a couple of more passes which hit them in the hands, tOSU would have coughed up a 28-3 lead in less than 15 minutes.

Most years, the 2018 tOSU squad would have made the playoff, but not with 4 Undefeated teams this year, including 2 incredibly dominant ones.

2018 tOSU was good enough to make "a" playoff, just not this one.
There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 32749
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: 2018 NCAA Football Thread

Post by Remus West » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:18 pm

I like the switch at OC for Michigan. Hopefully it signals that the offense will be modernizing.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken

GungHo
Posts: 3648
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:15 am
Location: Second star to the right

Re: 2018 NCAA Football Thread

Post by GungHo » Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:06 am

OU with another huge transfer in at qb in the form of jalen hurts. I don't see him with the same skill set as either Mayfield or Murray but...who knows? Could they possibly pull the trifecta of Heisman's? That would be pretty insane. Lincoln Riley has been working some magic in Norman of late so it's certainly not unimaginable.

Meanwhile looks like Utah is getting one Texas' log jammed up qbs in Cameron Rising. He was a 4 star guy but we have 3 other 4 star guys at that position and it just didn't work out for him. Might be a great situation in Utah as he has to sit his first year and then I think Utah will graduate their current crop of qbs.
We're possibly sending another qb to smu but at least our 3rd qb with his name in the transfer portal is (reported to be)coming back so we'll have a backup on the dang roster. 😬

Kind of crazy how this off-season thing in CFB has gotten so crazy (and interesting) with the rule changes the last couple of years
OR
cry in a corner that the world has come to a point where you have to pay for imaginary shit.

-Hiccup

User avatar
Skinypupy
Posts: 12857
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Pac-12 Country

Re: 2018 NCAA Football Thread

Post by Skinypupy » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:09 am

GungHo wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:06 am
Meanwhile looks like Utah is getting one Texas' log jammed up qbs in Cameron Rising. He was a 4 star guy but we have 3 other 4 star guys at that position and it just didn't work out for him. Might be a great situation in Utah as he has to sit his first year and then I think Utah will graduate their current crop of qbs.
Thanks for that, btw. :)

After what happened with our other 4-star QB transferring out mid-season, Rising could be a godsend. Shelley obviously wasn't the long term answer after Huntley leaves, and getting another kid in the mix was an absolute must. He'll for sure be in the mix after next year.
“Don’t tickle the wall clown.” - MST3K

Post Reply