Sandbagging Steve

I believe the head coach at Mater Dei is a good friend of Sark's. Didn't he come out when Sark was hired, or before he was hired, and talk about their friendship and how much respect he has for Sark as a coach? He's known him for two decades and Sark's son goes to Mater Dei. I think the decision with the linebacker last year can easily be explained and I don't see this coach holding a beef there. And there's room for both Shannon and Duce. If Shannon decommits, it will be because he wanted to go another route.

Duce is a better receiver than many of the national receivers in the 2023 class. He can play in-line tight end. He can also legitimately flex, at times, while Shannon plays in-line tight end. I know we've had unqualified flex TEs in the past decade but Duce is the real deal. He could take receiver reps. Like CTJ said, you don't want to lose Shannon and there should be room for both on the field. Duce probably takes more snaps from Randle than Shannon. I'm trying to think of the last few tight ends with this much talent. Kyle Pitts was a freak but only ranked #162 on the 247 Composite. Who else? OJ Howard? He's got a different style but he's a great two way threat at TE. Sark should have the opportunity to display this on the field in 2022, if Ja'Tavion Sanders and Gunnar Helm can progress at in-line TE. There's some receiving weapons at that position (Sanders, Billingsley, Davis) for the first time in a long time.

It sounds like the kid just found out recently that his mother was moving to Houston and that changed his recruitment. It's probably one reason for the sudden change of heart. Miami has one five star OT committed, an IOL ranked #439 (6-3, 300) and another OT not ranked/#172 in the state of Florida. Perhaps they are going to land another top-ranked kid, but that's not filling up at the position. With that said, Cristobal has no issue paying whatever it takes and he's a great offensive line coach, so he can definitely pick and choose. You usually don't buy the 250th ranked player in the country. I'm sure NIL helped, but this doesn't sound like a money bag. The kid has been recruited by our staff for years and he knows Arch Manning. Texas had enough ties into this recruitment to just win it outright. He has some serious upside, if he works hard at it.

All that stuff happens, if you keep up. Ole Miss is just one example I think NIL and conference realignment are good for the game. It's going to solve a lot of the issues in college football. It just takes some time to get there. Some people don't like the current movement in the game because they fear change. You see that in all walks of life. But if you look at the game at face value, you see that there are a lot of variables that could see improvement with a different approach.

"What I can't accept is some young man getting $10,000 a month for four years or three years of college? That's $120K a year. What do you think he's doing with that? Is that actually gonna make him more successful in life? Because, I promise you, if you handed me $10K a month my freshman year of college, I probably wouldn't be where I am today. I believe that." I don't necessarily disagree with bits and pieces of this article but: 1. Kirby is okay paying recruits six figures under the table BEFORE NIL and now he's not okay with it. Yea, like we all don't know why that is Kirby. 2. If a kid earns the money, he should get paid. There's no other way to do it because cheaters like Kirby Smart, Jimbo Fisher and Nick Saban give us no other way to do it fairly. The only thing you can do is add a salary with a cap to soften some of these NIL deals. Otherwise, NIL is the only way to keep cheaters in check. 3. There are immature kids out there, but I was never one of them. I grew up without air conditioner in the house, no cable TV and no insulation in the house. I played sports and worked my ass off all the way through high school to buy my first used truck. The money would have gotten me out of that shithole much faster because I would have taken care of it. I had to work full time, take outrageous loans and go to college at the same time. Fuck you, Kirby Smart, for speaking for everyone. I'm not surprised to hear you were immature, but you can't speak for everyone.

That's college football right now. I don't think it's a good thing.

Do you enjoy the lack of integrity in the college game? It's worse than FIFA, by a wide margin. Do you enjoy money being paid illegally under the table and glorified prostitutes thrown in front of students and their parents? Do you enjoy the life lessons these universities teach young athletes? Do you enjoy people not getting paid fairly for their hard work? Do you enjoy the fact that there is so many teams it's impossible to get good, unbiased officiating at the college game? And sometimes just straight up unprofessional cheating? The end result, at times, is refs determining the outcome of games. Games that kids have worked their tails off to win. That fans have spent a ton of money and invested a lot of time in. Do you enjoy the fact that no one plays anyone anymore? And that college football is the only sport where the champion hasn't earned it? All that time and money and the champion usually doesn't even earn the championship. Think about all the hard work kids and coaches put into this and the fans that invest their time and money. Is that fair to them?

Jimbo is a dumbass. He's always shouting and asking 200 questions that he doesn't want an answer to. His speeches never even make any sense. When he gets to the end of a long response, you have to fill in the blanks for him. It's like complete sentences don't exist for him. He can talk for 5 minutes and still not make his point. He's worse than Charlie Strong, and by a wide margin. How did this fucktard ever get through school?

Walter Nolan just dropped a creampie in that old hag. I may be a sandbagger, but I don't do cheap leftovers.

Because it takes two to tango and he knows it. There's a reason you're not Phil Knight and just a random dude on a message board

Since you two think your opinions just mean more than everyone else..and your opinions are facts... What a fucking odd respond. I answered your uninformed realignment question weeks and weeks ago and you conveniently didn't reply. I really don't see what the issue is, but you sound like you may have gray matter from being an old fart with his head stuck in the sand. Age, please? SEC doesn't need to divide up recruiting territory when determining who plays who. That's idiotic for a conference that has more recruiting territory than any other conference in America. And a conference that pulls 4 and 5 star recruits from all over the country. It's something that caught on during Big 12/PAC realignment and mattered way more in those scenarios. They will make decisions based on money, rivalries and a balanced schedule. You're not as smart as you think you are.

It's been reported that Stanford could be considered a requirement by Notre Dame in order to enter the B1G. It's been reported by a former TV executive that, because of the B1G Network and the Northern California market, Stanford brings the most value out of the rest of the PAC teams; by a considerable amount too. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I get it. I also know the B1G presidents would love Stanford's academic pedigree in the B1G. If both statements are true, the B1G may reconsider Stanford in the scenario I mentioned in the previous post. If Stanford seriously considers an Ivy approach, the B1G may want to prevent that kind of scenario. This isn't the same situation as the other Ivies back in the day. B1G wants ND first for financial reasons, but they may have to leverage ND's independence in order to finally get them in the B1G.

I have no idea what they are going to do but recruiting will play no part in it. Texas brings more recruiting territory, and that's great, but the SEC doesn't need Texas recruiting territory. That's one thing that makes this a great marriage. SEC teams have plenty of their own recruiting territory. This conference arrangement is about like-minded football programs coming together to compete for championships and make lots of money in front of the largest television audiences in the history of the sport. Giving someone else a team in Texas won't be one of the talking points on the agenda. It may end up that way, but that won't be the reason for the decision. This isn't the Big 12 or PAC. It's big boy football.

Don't forget there will be leftovers in the ACC at some point and possibly an increase in conference games. Those teams on the East Coast could have more partners in the future. Let's also remember that Oregon, Washington and Stanford (possibly even Colorado and Arizona/Arizona State) could be invited to the B1G down the road. The PAC schools also need more CST and EST games to help viewership numbers. I definitely think Oregon State and Washington State should be left behind. I could see one of Kansas or Kansas State and maybe Baylor getting the shaft. Of course, if Stanford dictates the show then BYU won't be getting in. That wouldn't be a good move for the Big 12 long term IMO. For the most part, every team brings about the $.

I agree! But the reason it hasn't happened is SEC/ESPN do not want to give the B1G Notre Dame for competitive reasons. ESPN locked the ACC in that bad contract with ND and the ACCN for the same reasons they did it to Texas for the LHN. It was future leverage. But this thing is all over. At some point in the future, ND is going to join the B1G. If I'm the SEC/ESPN, I give them ND (make the ACC contract workable and make no concessions in the playoff) in return for UNC. For the SEC, that's the team that is up for grabs and they need to win it. They can then add Virginia/VT, Clemson, FSU with UNC.

If Stanford threatened to fold up their football program (or play in an Ivy League type arrangement) because of the affiliation with some of the schools in their possible new arrangement (Baylor, BYU, SDSU, etc.), would the B1G cave in and take them now? Would the B1G take Stanford now to assist in eventually getting Notre Dame? I think the B1G could see that hypothetical situation as needing urgent action. Once Stanford downgraded, it may be really hard to bring the program back up to the big leagues and restart the program.

1. I'm in favor of a six team playoff with the first two seeds getting a bye. I would like to see 11 conference games (3+4+2+2) in Big 16 type conferences and one OOC game against the P2 (or rival). If they wanted to expand the regular season beyond twelve with even more conference games, I wouldn't complain. 2. If it takes an eight team playoff to get everyone to start playing more competitive games, I wouldn't have an issue with it. I agree, twelve teams is too much. You can save the importance of the regular season and solve many of these issues by just playing more conference games and/or expanding beyond twelve games.