CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: ELA on July 20, 2018, 09:24:17 AM
-
They started doing this eight years ago, in conjunction with Big Ten media days, to replace the "official" one the Big Ten stopped doing after the 2010 version. I believe it's 2 media members per school that vote.
| EAST | |
| 1. | Ohio State (23.5) | 191.5 |
| 2. | Michigan State (2) | 142 |
| 3. | Penn State (1) | 141.5 |
| 4. | Michigan (1.5) | 140.5 |
| 5. | Maryland | 75.5 |
| 6. | Indiana | 60 |
| 7. | Rutgers | 33 |
| . | |
| WEST | |
| 1. | Wisconsin (28) | 196 |
| 2. | Iowa | 155 |
| 3. | Northwestern | 138 |
| 4. | Nebraska | 104 |
| 5. | Purdue | 98.5 |
| 6. | Minnesota | 64.5 |
| 7. | Illinois | 28 |
14 picked Ohio State to win the CCG, 13 picked Wisconsin, 1 picked Michigan State.
Voting for Preseason Players of the Year
| | OFFENSE | | |
| 1. | QB | Trace McSorley | Penn State | 66 (14) |
| 2. | RB | Jonathan Taylor | Wisconsin | 61 (11) |
| 3. | RB | J.K. Dobbins | Ohio State | 28 (2) |
| 4. | QB | Brian Lewerke | Michigan State | 7 (1) |
| 5. | QB | Dwayne Haskins | Ohio State | 3 |
| 6. | TE | Noah Fant | Iowa | 2 |
| 7. | QB | Shea Patterson | Michigan | 1 |
| | . | | |
| | DEFENSE | | |
| 1. | DE | Nick Bosa | Ohio State | 74 (20) |
| 2. | DE | Rashan Gary | Michigan | 38 (6) |
| 3. | LB | T.J. Edwards | Wisconsin | 24 |
| 4. | LB | Devin Bush | Michigan | 14 (1) |
| 5. | LB | Paddy Fisher | Northwestern | 8 (1) |
| 6. | LB | Joe Bachie | Michigan State | 5 |
| 7. | DE | Chase Winovich | Michigan | 2 |
| 8t. | S | D'Cota Dixon | Wisconsin | 1 |
| 8t. | DT | Olive Sagapolu | Wisconsin | 1 |
| 8t. | LB | Khaleke Hudson | Michigan | 1 |
-
this may be the wrong place to offer such a thought as i don't want to hijack this thread.... feel free to move this @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) if this is the case...
i'm guessing this is how these folks believe the season will shake out, correct? this isn't delving into where they think the teams are right now (obviously preseason) in terms of development.
the reason i offer this is in my mind there are two distinct flavors of polls- there are the "where they're at" and the "where they'll land". yeah, they're related, but they are also distinct.
for instance- both Michigan and Ohio State have a leg up on the rest of the division as they meet late- when all cylinders are firing and bugs in the system are manifest as 'brain farts' instead... unless there are significant injuries, which brings the next point into play: schedule of critical opponents and where they land in the teams 'gelling process' of the season...
as example of that- some teams, by nature, don't require the 'gel', such as a Wiscy- they are going to play very close to fundamental pigskin if history tells us anything, making conservative moves and not necessarily relying on highly choreographed activities of so called 'skilled' positions. the choreography better describes the traditional attack of tOSU or what Purdue seems to be heading toward- they don't bang on all 8 until week 3 or 4- but by then they are a juggernaut.
ranking 'where we think the are now' early will absolutely benefit certain sets and schemes, and absolutely be detrimental to the more complicated schemes. they will catch up though...
i think my point is a weekly ranking 'power poll', if you would, is more valuable especially early... but... how does someone do a pre-season power poll?
just thinking....
-
I've often had the same issue, particularly when it comes to the preseason polls. I'll hear people say "they are a top 10 team on paper, but with that schedule, I just can't rank them higher than #20." Then when they go out and lose the games they were expected to lose, they'll still drop. I will say the CFP Rankings have done a good job of forcing AP voters to rethink that. That if the #12 team loses a tough road game to #4, if anything, they should move up. But traditionally it hasn't worked that way. So if you are going to drop your #10 team to #20 based on you projecting losses for them, you better not punish them when they actually lose the game you already punished them for losing.
As for this poll, my guess is there is no set rules, but if you are going to include a portion of the poll where you ask the voters who will play in, and win, the CCG, my guess is you are asking them to pick where the teams end up, even if not all voters went that way.
I also find it funny with these preseason POTY votes, or preseason all-conference, all-America teams. Granted I also run one on here for fun, but really, we are just voting on "who among returning players had the best 2017." Because we frequently get inputs such as John Smith is set for a breakout 2018, but I get why he's not included here. It really would be fun, although impossible to do preseason player honors based on actual projections, otherwise you are really just revoting on a 2017 postseason list, but removing players who have departed. You aren't really voting for 2018.
-
much better than the SI preseason poll, which ranks Michigan ahead of Michigan State for some mystifying reason.
-
We are guilty of that last part here. Me included. When I see the list come out, I know there are others not on it who are poised for big seasons.
Example..
Jonathan Taylor wasn't on any list last summer, but I knew he was gonna have a big year based on what he did against UW's defense in Fall camp and what the depth looked like.
-
much better than the SI preseason poll, which ranks Michigan ahead of Michigan State for some mystifying reason.
In all fairness, this is a de facto three way tie for second in the division.
-
We are guilty of that last part here. Me included. When I see the list come out, I know there are others not on it who are poised for big seasons.
Example..
Jonathan Taylor wasn't on any list last summer, but I knew he was gonna have a big year based on what he did against UW's defense in Fall camp and what the depth looked like.
Was he the #1 going into the fall? I can't remember. I know if not, it didn't take long for him to become that. If so, then simply being the #1 back at Wisconsin should be enough.
-
much better than the SI preseason poll, which ranks Michigan ahead of Michigan State for some mystifying reason.
Nobody gives anyone a chance to unseat UW in the West.
I think people are sleeping on Iowa this year. They have a great chance to win the West.
Home games are UW (September night game?), NU, UNL and UMd. Road games are PU, UI, Minnie, PSU and IU.
Of those, I think only PSU is the sure loss.
-
Was he the #1 going into the fall? I can't remember. I know if not, it didn't take long for him to become that. If so, then simply being the #1 back at Wisconsin should be enough.
He was #2, for a week. Everyone paying attention knew that he'd be the top dog soon enough.
-
Nobody gives anyone a chance to unseat UW in the West.
I think people are sleeping on Iowa this year. They have a great chance to win the West.
Home games are UW (September night game?), NU, UNL and UMd. Road games are PU, UI, Minnie, PSU and IU.
Of those, I think only PSU is the sure loss.
Iowa and Northwestern (depending on Thorson's) return, I think are both about what they were last year, which are fringe Top 25 teams. Certainly good enough to beat Wisconsin, or anyone, but to be better over the course of 9 games? Eh.
I said in my breakdown, I think Wisconsin is absolutely loaded. Better than last year. Should be the best offense in Madison ever. The issue is the schedule is much more difficult. They trade out Indiana for Penn State, and their four toughest opponents from 2017 (UM, Iowa, Northwestern, Purdue) all become road games.
-
I agree UW is the better team. I just look at the schedules and it lines up nicely for Iowa.
-
The issue is the schedule is much more difficult. They trade out Indiana for Penn State, and their four toughest opponents from 2017 (UM, Iowa, Northwestern, Purdue) all become road games.
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.espncdn.com%2Fphoto%2F2016%2F0106%2Fr42030_576x324_16-9.jpg&hash=83211f8fb0297deb1788e161ac01749e)
-
long live the KING
-
He's just pissy because King Barry had a better record (5-7-1) against OSU than probably anyone else but Lloyd (6-7) in the past 25 years. Two of those 7 losses occurred in years 1 and 2, when UW was 1-10 and 5-6. He had a pretty good run when it came to OSU.
Michigan.. not so much. 3-7 on that one.
-
His track record against OSU is admirable.
While I wish that he'd've fared a little better vs the Wolverines, they were quite a bit better back then.
-
I agree UW is the better team. I just look at the schedules and it lines up nicely for Iowa.
Last year I thought that UW was a lock even in the preseason because their schedule was so much easier than Iowa.
This year I think Wisconsin should have a really good team, but I am less certain of their getting to the CCG. Wisconsin's five conference road games include their two most likely divisional competitors (IA, NU) and two potential B1G-E contenders (M, PSU). That schedule could be problematic for the Badgers even if they are clearly the best team in the B1G-W.
-
Wisc is getting a lot of love this year to win the BIG. I still think it will be OSU, but I think Wisky will be in the playoff discussion.
-
they were in the playoff discussion last season, until.........
-
Until OSU happened. So damn close, but yet so far.
At least they were able to push Miami around.
Turnover Chain my F'ing Ass.
- Paul Chryst
-
| 2. | Michigan State (2) | 142 |
| 3. | Penn State (1) | 141.5 |
| 4. | Michigan (1.5) | 140.5 |
Wow, just wow. 1 point separating these 3. This is what makes preseason exciting. I'm expecting a lot of great football to come out of the East again this year.
-
| 2. | Michigan State (2) | 142 |
| 3. | Penn State (1) | 141.5 |
| 4. | Michigan (1.5) | 140.5 |
Wow, just wow. 1 point separating these 3. This is what makes preseason exciting. I'm expecting a lot of great football to come out of the East again this year.
In addition to just one point separating those three for 2nd/3rd/4th, they are a lot closer to #1 Ohio State than they are to #5 Maryland. Some analysis of schedule factors for the presumed top-4 in the B1G-E this year:
Rank (per Cleveland.com). Team: H/A games against the other three top-4 teams: B1G-W opponents and their B1G-W rank:
- Ohio State: @ PSU, @ MSU, v M: @#5 PU, v#4 UNL, v#6 MN
- Michigan State: @ PSU, v M, v tOSU: @#4 UNL, v#3 NU, v#5 PU
- Penn State: @ M, v tOSU, v MSU: @#7 ILL, v#2 IA, v#1 UW
- Michigan: @ tOSU, @ MSU, v PSU: @#3 NU, v#1 UW, v#4 UNL
Looking at the games against each other: MSU and PSU have the advantage with one road game and two home games while conversely tOSU and M have the disadvantage with one home game and two road games.
Looking at the three games against the B1G-W: MSU has the toughest road game but PSU has the toughest set of home games. Ohio State has the easiest B1G-W slate.
Overall, I'd say that MSU has the most favorable schedule.
-
MSU getting OSU in East Lansing never seems to be an advantage
-
For some reason I thought that the Illini were MSU's fixed crossover, but it's Northwestern apparently.
-
MSU getting OSU in East Lansing never seems to be an advantage
I thought about discussing that but in theory that should be to MSU's advantage and tOSU's disadvantage. Also, maybe with the 2017 Ohio State win in Columbus the odd streak is over?
This history:
From 2000-2008 location didn't matter: The Spartans went 0-7 against the Buckeyes with four losses in Columbus and three in East Lansing.
From 2008-2016 home field seemed to be a disadvantage: The Spartans went 3-4 against the Buckeyes but the breakdown is unusual. MSU was 0-4 against the Buckeyes in East Lansing but 2-0 in Columbus and 1-0 at a neutral site (2013 B1GCG in Indy).
Last year, for the first time since 2007, the Spartans lost in Columbus. If the Buckeyes lose in East Lansing this year it will be for the first time since 1999.
-
I thought about discussing that but in theory that should be to MSU's advantage and tOSU's disadvantage. Also, maybe with the 2017 Ohio State win in Columbus the odd streak is over?
This history:
From 2000-2008 location didn't matter: The Spartans went 0-7 against the Buckeyes with four losses in Columbus and three in East Lansing.
From 2008-2016 home field seemed to be a disadvantage: The Spartans went 3-4 against the Buckeyes but the breakdown is unusual. MSU was 0-4 against the Buckeyes in East Lansing but 2-0 in Columbus and 1-0 at a neutral site (2013 B1GCG in Indy).
Last year, for the first time since 2007, the Spartans lost in Columbus. If the Buckeyes lose in East Lansing this year it will be for the first time since 1999.
I think you could make the case that since 1999 (the year after MSU upset #1 OSU in Columbus) the better team has won, and location simply is irrelevant in the series. I think probably only the 2015 MSU win on the Geiger FG cuts against that. The winner every other time, was simply pretty clearly the better team.
-
Turnover Chain my F'ing Ass.
- Paul Chryst
HA,love it!PC wasn't being PC
-
MSU getting OSU in East Lansing never seems to be an advantage
And let's just keep playing there thank you - kinda guys we are
-
I think you could make the case that since 1999 (the year after MSU upset #1 OSU in Columbus) the better team has won, and location simply is irrelevant in the series. I think probably only the 2015 MSU win on the Geiger FG cuts against that. The winner every other time, was simply pretty clearly the better team.
Wasn't that 1998?
-
Wasn't that 1998?
Yes, so since 1999. 1998 is excluded, I don't think MSU was the better team that year. That's why I said the year after the MSU upset
-
I think you could make the case that since 1999 (the year after MSU upset #1 OSU in Columbus) the better team has won, and location simply is irrelevant in the series. I think probably only the 2015 MSU win on the Geiger FG cuts against that. The winner every other time, was simply pretty clearly the better team.
I wouldn't go quite as far as "pretty clearly" but overall I think I agree.
- 2017: tOSU won. tOSU finished 12-2, MSU finished 10-3. It is only a 1.5 game difference but Ohio State's extra game was a win over a very good Wisconsin team in the B1GCG. Ohio State was pretty clearly better.
- 2016: tOSU won. tOSU finished 11-2, MSU finished 3-9. Ohio State was pretty clearly better. Actually, the main surprise about this game is that it was only 17-16. Typically you would expect a random 11-2 team to beat a random 3-9 team by a lot more than one point.
- 2015: MSU won. MSU finished 12-2, tOSU finished 12-1. MSU's extra game was a win over a previously undefeated Iowa but as it turned out Iowa subsequently got smoked by Stanford so their 12-0 start was largely a product of schedule. I do not believe that MSU was better, let alone "pretty clearly" better largely because MSU's two losses were to a sub .500 Nebraska team and a shutout loss in the CFP. You already acknowledged this one.
- 2014: tOSU won. tOSU finished 14-1 and National Champions, MSU finished 11-2. Ohio State's two extra wins were a B1GCG and a CFP semi-final. Based on that, Ohio State was clearly better.
- 2013: MSU won 34-24 in the B1GCG. MSU finished 13-1, tOSU finished 12-2. I could make an argument either way as to which team was better so I don't think this falls into "pretty clearly" territory.
- 2012: tOSU won. tOSU finished 12-0, MSU finished 7-6. Ohio State was clearly better.
- 2011: MSU won. MSU finished 11-3, tOSU finished 6-7. Michigan State was clearly better.
- 2010: n/a, they didn't play.
- 2009: n/a, they didn't play.
- 2008: tOSU won. tOSU finished 10-3, MSU finished 9-4. It is only a one game difference but Ohio State's three losses were to teams that finished 12-1, 12-1, and 11-2. Granted, MSU's four losses were all to good teams, just not quite that good. Ohio State was clearly better.
- 2007: tOSU won. tOSU finished 11-2, MSU finished 7-6. Ohio State was clearly better.
- 2006: tOSU won. tOSU finished 12-1, MSU finished 4-8. Ohio State was clearly better.
- 2005: tOSU won. tOSU finished 10-2, MSU finished 5-6. Ohio State was clearly better.
- 2004: tOSU won. tOSU finished 8-4, MSU finished 5-7. Ohio State was clearly better.
- 2003: tOSU won. tOSU finished 11-2, MSU finished 8-5. Ohio State was clearly better.
- 2002: n/a, they didn't play.
- 2001: n/a, they didn't play.
- 2000: tOSU won. tOSU finished 8-4, MSU finished 5-6. Ohio State was clearly better.
- 1999: MSU won. MSU finished 10-2, tOSU finished 6-6. MSU was clearly better.
Ok, having reviewed all of them back to 1999 (inclusive), other than 2015 and 2013 I agree that the winner has been clearly the better team. Even with those two, an argument can be made that the better team won.
From 1999-2017 the Buckeyes are 11-4 against the Spartans. One thing that has hurt MSU is that their ups-and-downs have largely tracked Ohio State's and just been slightly lower. Examples:
- 2000: Ohio State had a pretty pedestrian 8-4 record but MSU was only 5-6.
- 2004: Ohio State had a pretty pedestrian 8-4 record but MSU was only 5-7.
- 2014: Michigan State had a great team that finished 11-2 but tOSU was even better and finished 14-1.
Those 2000 and 2004 tOSU teams would have been beaten by at least half of the teams that MSU has fielded over the past 19 years but not by the teams that they fielded in those years. Similarly, the 2014 MSU team would probably have beaten half of the tOSU teams over the past 19 years but not the 2014 team.
-
2013 MSU went 9-0 in the Big Ten, beating every team, OSU included, by double digits. Nobody else in Big Ten history has ever done that. I feel pretty good saying they were clearly the better team. I stand by 2015 being the lone exception.
-
2013 MSU went 9-0 in the Big Ten, beating every team, OSU included, by double digits. Nobody else in Big Ten history has ever done that. I feel pretty good saying they were clearly the better team. I stand by 2015 being the lone exception.
I don't think it is that clear but agree to disagree. I'm more interested in your opinion and other opinions on the relative schedules of the pre-season top-4 in the B1G-E. My post on that got sidetracked into this.
-
Frost on Wisconsin: "They've been out-Nebraska-ing Nebraska and we're going to fix that."
-
Best of luck, kinda.
-
well, it will take some luck, but more hard work and dedication
if Nebraska can't do it, not many can.
-
Frost on Wisconsin: "They've been out-Nebraska-ing Nebraska and we're going to fix that."
~:P
https://twitter.com/BarstoolBigCat/status/1021810780168183809
-
that's the problem, the Huskers haven't been roiding
that's easy to fix
-
that's the problem, the Huskers haven't been roiding
that's easy to fix
Sure they have.
They all have.
That's the problem.
-
Bringing Ellis back to do it better than anyone..............
Dave Ellis, a longtime employee in the strength and conditioning department and more recently a sports-related consultant, was named the Nebraska athletic department's director of performance nutrition on Friday.
Ellis worked for Nebraska throughout the 1980s before spending about four years at the University of Wisconsin. He returned to Nebraska in 1994 and started the school's original nutrition department before entering private practice in 2001.
-
CHICAGO — While he may eventually make his team’s job a little harder, Wisconsin Athletic Director Barry Alvarez is a big fan of Scott Frost.
“He’ll bring trust,” Alvarez said. “People in Nebraska know him, they trust him. He understands Nebraska, he understands what they’re all about. He’s been there, he grew up with it, he did it at the highest level. The fans are sitting there looking, thinking 'He’s one of ours.'"
Alvarez, a former Husker linebacker, played with Scott Frost’s dad, Larry.
“Dad was a good player,” Alvarez said. “He could really run.”
Frost was blunt Monday in his praise for Alvarez and the Badgers, which have taken NU’s old blueprint of physical football and used it as their own. Frost said Wisconsin was “out-Nebraska-ing Nebraska."
While Wisconsin opted for a pro-style offense instead of an option attack — with former Nebraska head coach Bill Callahan running the offensive line for his first five years — Alvarez said physicality was a focus.
“I was trained in Nebraska,” Alvarez said. “I idolized Bob Devaney, and a lot of principles and things I believe in football I learned there ... The walk-on program, I said this as soon as I went (to Wisconsin), we emphasized it, much like Coach Devaney and Coach (Tom) Osborne.”
-
Pretty high praise right there.
-
I truly believe the respect is mutual and of a very high level
-
It's also quite obvious that Frost respects Frank Solich and Bo Pelini, but does NOT respect Bill Callahan (as a head coach) or Mike Riley
-
Billy C was a helluva OL coach for UW man. Those boys would jump through walls for him.
-
He's also done a solid job coaching O-line in the NFL and continues to do so
just not the right fit in Lincoln, NE
-
Some coaches are not suited to be the head man. This is one example of many.
-
Sure they have.
They all have.
That's the problem.
Cynical. I disagree.
-
I don't know how many programs roid today, but in the 80's...... it was rampant
not to say all players were on roids in the 80s, but many were, few weren't
-
Tom's Takes: Big Ten Kickoff Luncheon embodies what makes this conference great
By Tom Shatel / World-Herald staff writer
https://omaha.com/huskers/blogs/tom-s-takes-big-ten-kickoff-luncheon-embodies-what-makes/article_44223692-76b2-5b5c-a725-e50b2d952ccd.html (https://omaha.com/huskers/blogs/tom-s-takes-big-ten-kickoff-luncheon-embodies-what-makes/article_44223692-76b2-5b5c-a725-e50b2d952ccd.html)
-
For sure. Since then, however, I think that the will for oversight and the stigma associated with offending have increased enough to make it comparatively uncommon.
Of course the stigma isn't absolute, nor is the oversight perfect. But I don't think those balances had to tip 100% to sufficiently deter players.
Obviously none of us are insiders with locker room phlebotomy kits and spreadsheets of real data, so this is just an educated guess. Still, I'm betting compliance is the norm and that there is a healthy chunk of P5 programs that truly are 100% clean.
I wish I were equally trusting of their schoolwork and refusal of impermissible benefits.
-
I can promise you there are no 100% clean programs, and I'd be pleasantly surprised if any were 75% clean.
-
How can you possibly substantiate that? Maybe you have deep insider hearsay from one or three programs. Am I underestimating?
-
Deep insider? No. But I've attended three different P5 schools and was aware of use at all three, and have heard use stories from alums at other Big Ten schools. Not some massive program like what we saw in the 70s. But the same way that kids at all accepted impermissible benefits. Not cars, but a couple hundred bucks here, a $100 gift card there. My take was that it was kids doing it on their own, which can obviously be dangerous.
-
Some coaches are not suited to be the head man. This is one example of many.
I’d alter that slightly to say some coaches are not suited to be head men in certain situations. I think he could’ve been good at a MAC school, maybe a mid-tier big Ten school that had some flexibility in identity.
He went to a powerhouse in a state of existential disfunction (not unlike RichRod). He went to a team that was about to learn it was not so strong its identity didn’t matter. He wasn’t suited to that job and didn’t produce enough, but I don’t necessarily think he’s not suited to lead a team.
-
Deep insider? No. But I've attended three different P5 schools and was aware of use at all three, and have heard use stories from alums at other Big Ten schools. Not some massive program like what we saw in the 70s. But the same way that kids at all accepted impermissible benefits. Not cars, but a couple hundred bucks here, a $100 gift card there. My take was that it was kids doing it on their own, which can obviously be dangerous.
When I was in school, a friend who was an athlete told about a sorta-star football player walking into a store and collecting some items, and the cashier, recognizing him, told him to just have the items.
I don’t think he did because it was right after some kind of compliance refresher, but I’ve not doubts that happened again and someone didn’t say no.
-
as far as performance enhancing drugs, especially roids, I'll ask around. I know guys my age that did roids back in the early 80s and some that did not. Their kids were recently playing and would know if it's still the same today or if it's not allowed by coaching staffs and tested for. Or if like marijuana, it's simply discussed and then hoped that kids stay out of trouble. Hope it doesn't show up on a random.
-
I'm guessing the grades and money/free tats and shoes still go on EVERYWHERE
kids like perks
-
If Waterloo can have a roid scandal, anyone can.
-
If Waterloo can have a roid scandal, anyone can.
was this within the past 5 years?
-
I wish I were equally trusting of their schoolwork and refusal of impermissible benefits.
There are no blood tests to prove whether someone did their own schoolwork or accepted a little cash under the table.
When I was in school, a friend who was an athlete told about a sorta-star football player walking into a store and collecting some items, and the cashier, recognizing him, told him to just have the items.
I don’t think he did because it was right after some kind of compliance refresher, but I’ve not doubts that happened again and someone didn’t say no.
I remember that... Crab legs, right? :57:
-
was this within the past 5 years?
No. But they did have to sit out the entire 2010 season.
-
well, that certainly wasn't the 80's or even the 90's
-
I hadn't noticed that stipulation. My bad.
-
I'm sure roiding was rampant in the 80s
was wondering if it's still happening today
-
Waterloo is awful even by Canadian CFB standards. If they were roiding as recently as 2010, it is probably safe to extrapolate that it is fairly widespread.
-
Deep insider? No. But I've attended three different P5 schools and was aware of use at all three, and have heard use stories from alums at other Big Ten schools. Not some massive program like what we saw in the 70s. But the same way that kids at all accepted impermissible benefits. Not cars, but a couple hundred bucks here, a $100 gift card there. My take was that it was kids doing it on their own, which can obviously be dangerous.
I'd say that extrapolation from 3 programs to all programs is premature/irresponsible but the argument should actually come before that.
You heard about some players. I doubt you watched them shoot up. Sure, that's not a realistic thing to expect. But you did type "promise." And said you'd be surprised if 25+ players per 100-man roster weren't tainted. I don't think you should even do that kind of extrapolation within the three teams you have one or a couple anecdotes for...let alone then extrapolate from those programs to all programs.
Ultimately: You're talking about hearsay of a small sample (couple players) of a small sample (3 teams). I know you want to assign probabilities, but there's not enough info here to trust one's ability to assign real probabilities.
I don't have that info either and had to stop at calling it an educated guess. That impasse (we both guessed differently) is reasonable to me. A promise is impossible.
-
Well all in all it's 6 programs, not 3, and straight from the mouths of players/trainers at all 6. 3 was just the number I attended, and actually none of the 3 would be the one I have the most connections at. No I didn't actually watch any players use, but at all 6 programs where I know people who would know, they all said absolutely.
-
That is stronger. You should have started with that. It still sounds qualitative ("oh it definitely happens") and not quantitative ("at least 25 of 100 guys") though. Unless your next post includes a guarantee from these insiders in number.
In any event: still hearsay but it sounds increasingly credible. Bummer.
Did they mention the mode - steroids, red blood cells, EPO, that reindeer thing?
-
HGH. While I don't believe we still have S&C coaches helping kids access drugs and assist in their cycles, I'm not sure that's a good thing. A lot of these kids get it on their own, and god knows what they are actually putting in their bodies. I think the intent in drug testing is good, and overall does lead to substantially fewer players using. But I do worry, just like recreational drug use, that once we take it out of the hands of professionals, what kind of risks are we opening those who still use up to. Particularly while coaches just pretend not to know what's going on. Remember it was just 2 years ago where Saban took issue with the fact that only CFP teams were subject to NCAA testing. So he knows. He's just mad that only 4 out of 128 face NCAA testing for it.
-
really? the NCAA doesn't drug test any longer? self testing by the schools themselves?
http://www.ncaa.org/sport-science-institute/topics/frequently-asked-questions-about-drug-testing (http://www.ncaa.org/sport-science-institute/topics/frequently-asked-questions-about-drug-testing)
-
I would bet doping of one kind or another is routine in and around CFB. I doubt it's sanctioned by many schools, but I bet they are largely ok with presenting a front to the public that looks like they are addressing the issue, without investing in the resources to really crack down.
MLB is a pretty good barometer. It has a strict guideline for drug test failures, and yet every year people--including stars--get caught. They wouldn't get caught if they didn't think they could get away with it, and if they think they can get away with it, that's because people do. So they are catching a small percentage of the cheats.
Professional bike racing and the Olympics are also pretty demonstrative. Those testing regimes there are extremely strict and quite active, and yet people--including the stars--routinely get caught. Same as with MLB: if they thought they would get caught, they wouldn't do it.
The incentive to cheat is strong and the technology is there to keep ahead of the testing. The physical feats these guys are pulling off are remarkable. Sure, some of them are the result of lucky genes, some are the result of legitimate research in strength and conditioning training, and some--probably a significant part--are the result of "science" and keeping ahead of the testing regime.
Truly just an opinion, but a strongly held one. :-)
-
HGH. While I don't believe we still have S&C coaches helping kids access drugs and assist in their cycles, I'm not sure that's a good thing. A lot of these kids get it on their own, and god knows what they are actually putting in their bodies. I think the intent in drug testing is good, and overall does lead to substantially fewer players using. But I do worry, just like recreational drug use, that once we take it out of the hands of professionals, what kind of risks are we opening those who still use up to. Particularly while coaches just pretend not to know what's going on. Remember it was just 2 years ago where Saban took issue with the fact that only CFP teams were subject to NCAA testing. So he knows. He's just mad that only 4 out of 128 face NCAA testing for it.
I've never looked into it, but as a purified protein I can't imagine how expensive hGH is.
Biologics (medicines that are purified proteins) tend to cost thousands a month. Are only the rich kids doing it? How would non-rich kids get the money?
Which is related but separate from finding a source. Maybe the poorer kids are all doing column chromatography in campus research labs to keep their footballing at its peak.
-
I would bet doping of one kind or another is routine in and around CFB. I doubt it's sanctioned by many schools, but I bet they are largely ok with presenting a front to the public that looks like they are addressing the issue, without investing in the resources to really crack down.
MLB is a pretty good barometer. It has a strict guideline for drug test failures, and yet every year people--including stars--get caught. They wouldn't get caught if they didn't think they could get away with it, and if they think they can get away with it, that's because people do. So they are catching a small percentage of the cheats.
Professional bike racing and the Olympics are also pretty demonstrative. Those testing regimes there are extremely strict and quite active, and yet people--including the stars--routinely get caught. Same as with MLB: if they thought they would get caught, they wouldn't do it.
The incentive to cheat is strong and the technology is there to keep ahead of the testing. The physical feats these guys are pulling off are remarkable. Sure, some of them are the result of lucky genes, some are the result of legitimate research in strength and conditioning training, and some--probably a significant part--are the result of "science" and keeping ahead of the testing regime.
Truly just an opinion, but a strongly held one. :-)
I don't disagree with that logic. But who was the last CFB player to publicly test positive for something other than a GNC supplement (Grier at UF tested pos. for that reindeer antler thing)?
The last confirmed example on my mind is Tony Mandarich in the late 1980s. Bullough's Rose Bowl suspension has been roundly speculated as doping-related but never confirmed.
(P.S. I'm sensitive to the fact it looks bad that I can only think of MSU examples. Except for the fact that we all know the news best from our neck of the woods...I want to call it a coincidence.)
In any event my point is that these cases don't go public nearly as often in CFB as they do in MLB. Is that a false premise? And if not, why? Do the programs sit on it in-house? I don't think we see enough unexplained suspensions for that to be it. My guess is that CFB oversight is either way higher or way lower than the MLB. And I'd be shocked if it's way lower.
-
I don't disagree with that logic. But who was the last CFB player to publicly test positive for something other than a GNC supplement (Grier at UF tested pos. for that reindeer antler thing)?
The last confirmed example on my mind is Tony Mandarich in the late 1980s. Bullough's Rose Bowl suspension has been roundly speculated as doping-related but never confirmed.
(P.S. I'm sensitive to the fact it looks bad that I can only think of MSU examples. Except for the fact that we all know the news best from our neck of the woods...I want to call it a coincidence.)
In any event my point is that these cases don't go public nearly as often in CFB as they do in MLB. Is that a false premise? And if not, why? Do the programs sit on it in-house? I don't think we see enough unexplained suspensions for that to be it. My guess is that CFB oversight is either way higher or way lower than the MLB. And I'd be shocked if it's way lower.
I mean a simple Google search of articles finds several that discuss just how weak the NCAA testing policy is.
-
Yeah, I think the answer is that it is way lower, i.e., the NCAA testing is weak relative to professional sports. That's what the Google is telling me, though I won't invest the time to confirm my initial search.
-
I mean a simple Google search of articles finds several that discuss just how weak the NCAA testing policy is.
Didn't occur to me as a Googleable kind of thing. /cardinalsin
-
I think data privacy rules protects student athletes in ways it doesn't protect the pros (probably due to collective bargaining for "employees" in the pro ranks).
But here's an example of a failed performance enhancing drug test at a major university within the last year or so:
https://www.bgsfirm.com/college-sports-law-blog/bledsoe-v-ncaa-ou-student-athlete-challenges-ncaa-drug-testing-policies
-
And here's a dated article, but one that points out the same gap noted above in high profile drug cheats in the college ranks:
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/8765531/steroids-loom-major-college-football-report-says
-
Now that we're progressing (because now it appears I've been wrong about basically all my hunches), I'd like to push this to the source and cost.
hGH should be doubly unattainable for a college student acting independently -- the cost is all but guaranteed to be more than $52K annually (I just checked) and biologics aren't available on store shelves or street corners. But it happens anyway. Meaning I'm incorrectly hunching here, too. So...what's the mechanism?
(Edit: or is this like the garbage you see peddled on those misleading "low T" infomercials and, turns out, the supplement is cheap and (shh!) never predicted to be effective. I've seen versions of that for oral hGH supplements. But hGH is a protein. Eating it would only cause expensive digestion. And when inexpensive, those supplements are merely amino acid formulations...and, sure, AA's could be used to make hGH but will far more often be used to make whatever else the body is driven to make instead. Exactly like a hamburger would, or a zucchini.)
-
I'm guessing the grades and money/free tats and shoes still go on EVERYWHERE
kids like perks
I still think we need to interview Eddie Rife (owner of Columbus Tattoo parlor who gave out discounted tattoos) and get him to go on record that he would give a discounted tattoo to anyone who gives him a gold trinket. Then we have a North Carolina situation, where it's not just the Athletes getting a discount, but anyone, so the NCAA can't hand out sanctions.
-
Yeah, my take is that while it's still.commonly used, it's very much the athletes acting independently, unlike what we had in the 70s, so I would doubt that what they are accessing is anything that cost prohibitive. That would put us in a realm of schools, agents or boosters providing it, and I've never heard anything to that effect.
Didn't the deer antler spray guy who was supplying Alabama players say the coaches continued to send him cease and desist letters that he openly ignored?
-
Yeah, my take is that while it's still.commonly used, it's very much the athletes acting independently, unlike what we had in the 70s, so I would doubt that what they are accessing is anything that cost prohibitive. That would put us in a realm of schools, agents or boosters providing it, and I've never heard anything to that effect.
Didn't the deer antler spray guy who was supplying Alabama players say the coaches continued to send him cease and desist letters that he openly ignored?
The booster angle is the best explanation I guessed, too. At least for the expensive and inaccessible PEDs.
And, honestly, if true I wouldn't be surprised if boosters felt more secure in their investments effecting outcomes if/when they subsidize PEDs than if/when they fund pizza and PlayStation games. That "if true" part looms.
As for the Bama case: Not familiar. Will google later. This convo, while interesting, is a drag. Naiveté served a purpose.
-
https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-coaches-talk-anonymously-about-conference-foes-2018 (https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-coaches-talk-anonymously-about-conference-foes-2018)
-
https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-coaches-talk-anonymously-about-conference-foes-2018 (https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-coaches-talk-anonymously-about-conference-foes-2018)
I always love that article. What a great concept, and you actually get the unvarnished truth about what other coaches think.
-
I always love that article. What a great concept, and you actually get the unvarnished truth about what other coaches think.
Yup, it's gold every year.
-
Meh. Lots of fluff this year.
I want to read someone call Harbaugh crazy. I want to read someone call Fleck PJ Barnum. I want to read someone call Ferentz a thief.
Stuff like that.
-
Yup, it's gold every year.
Meh. Lots of fluff this year.
I want to read someone call Harbaugh crazy. I want to read someone call Fleck PJ Barnum. I want to read someone call Ferentz a thief.
Stuff like that.
I think it's similar as always. Lots of cutting remarks. It all sounds honest.
-
Meh. Lots of fluff this year.
I want to read someone call Harbaugh crazy. I want to read someone call Fleck PJ Barnum. I want to read someone call Ferentz a thief.
Stuff like that.
I don't think it's quite unvarnished
but, it's better than what you get while while behind the podium
What did you think of the Spartan reporter calling out Harbaugh for 3rd and 4th place finishes?
-
Shit, I think the Ann Arbor reporters are calling that out. As they should.
For all of the bravado and for $7Mil per season he should do more to make headlines than have sleepovers or climb trees.
The whole article could be all bulljive too. Anonymous and all that.
-
https://www.diehardsport.com/college-football/msu-reporter-downplays-michigan-ohio-state-rivalry-at-b1g-media-day/ (https://www.diehardsport.com/college-football/msu-reporter-downplays-michigan-ohio-state-rivalry-at-b1g-media-day/)
-
Looks like we were talking about two different things.
I like the MSU guy. What I don't think has any merit is Harbaugh using a reporter's words to motivate his team. If he does.. well, then that's bad. He knows he's 1-5 against his rivals.
-
Hondo?
Even MSU fans cringe when he asks a question. The question about MSU-OSU is fine, but there's no reason to frame it that way. Since Rexrode left for Nashville the MSU beat has been lousy. Graham Couch is pretty good, but Hondo is a homer joke, and Chris Solari is one of those guys who just tries to get a reaction.
-
https://www.diehardsport.com/college-football/msu-reporter-downplays-michigan-ohio-state-rivalry-at-b1g-media-day/ (https://www.diehardsport.com/college-football/msu-reporter-downplays-michigan-ohio-state-rivalry-at-b1g-media-day/)
Guy's got some Cajones - I'll give him that.He should go after Political - Corporate corruption - I like his style
-
I could see the guy doing on a bet from another reporter the night before
"I dare you to ask Harbaugh about his 3rd and 4th place finishes in the East and his 1-5 record vs his rivals"
otherwise it comes off as a bit sophomoric. I'm sure plenty of young Spartan fans enjoyed it.
-
I could see the guy doing on a bet from another reporter the night before
"I dare you to ask Harbaugh about his 3rd and 4th place finishes in the East and his 1-5 record vs his rivals"
otherwise it comes off as a bit sophomoric. I'm sure plenty of young Spartan fans enjoyed it.
Actually, more the opposite. The younger Spartan fans all cringed by that outdated mentality. It's the older crowd, who still follows Hondo (who has bounced around in local media forever) that he's appeasing. I'm sure he's enjoying it though, he hasn't been this relevant since "breaking" the story that Izzo was seriously considering taking over the football job after John L. Smith was fired. I don't mind poking Harbaugh a little, it's sports rivalries, it should be fun, but I don't really like it overall.
-
I sure as hell don't mind poking Harbaugh or Michigan, but it could have been more clever or funny or sporting
If Harbaugh would have grinned and the entire room would have laughed it would have been great
-
I sure as hell don't mind poking Harbaugh or Michigan, but it could have been more clever or funny or sporting
If Harbaugh would have grinned and the entire room would have laughed it would have been great
Had he grinned I wouldn't have liked it as much. It clearly irked him. That I like. If you're gonna irk, prepare to be irked.
-
yes, I would have enjoyed that as well.
I guess I'm mildly disappointed that I didn't enjoy it a bit more.