Jump to content

Bodacious Bevo

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    2069
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Bodacious Bevo

  1. 2 hours ago, Eskimohorn said:


    I’d argue 2018 (unsuccessfully)

    That year the secondary was loaded, so much so that we went dime much of the time.

    I’d also take the trio of Lil Jordan, Collin Johnson, and Devin Duvernay.

    It’s a sound argument until you get to the 2018 defensive line. On one side you had Omenihu and 10 sacks, on the other, you had Breckyn Hager playing with one arm.

    Bro I love the 2018 team but that's insane (caveat for 2 game sample size and all). Are you confusing the secondary with 2017? '18 wasn't a particularly good group. Very up and down and slightly above average to good overall. Not to mention glaring deficiencies at LB, which was the reason that we leaned into dime 2018-19. Hell, we tried trotting out Malcolm Roach at MLB until Maryland showed us the stunning power of a jet sweep. Not to mention worse personnel at OL, RB, and TE (setting aside your opinion on WR). 

  2. 1 hour ago, Getafix said:

     

    Movie gif. Actor James Franco as David in The Interview stands at a podium and delivers an international address. "Same" he says, while pointing. He waves his hand in front of his face and continues "But different..." before pointing again "But still same."

     

    image.thumb.png.2530305864ef1b8d9ca88f8950dbdf35.png

     

     

    Buyout numbers tend to lose meaning as they get thrown around, but for perspective I think the largest buyout ever paid to fire a coach was Gus Malzahn at $21.45M. Any sort of aggie rationalization about paying the buyout other than pure desperation and failure is just not faithful to reality. It's going to be a massive and debilitating expense. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Drool 1
  3. 3 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

    I take a little exception to this, as the wr to that side set a natural pick that gbenda had to go under that killed his angle to McClellan. 

    They also were able to clearly identify the matchup with some pre-snap motion. I was really surprised we didn't check into a different coverage. Having your LB show man coverage on the RB before the snap and not adjusting is asking for trouble. We just got really lucky Milroe missed the throw. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 4 hours ago, sidis said:

    Ironically, the two deep td passes were not great. Worthy’s was brutally bad and Mitchell’s wasn’t great. Wrs made incredible plays. 

    even more ironically, Quinn threw an absolutely perfect goal line throw on 3rd and goal in the first drive and worthy did a terrible job and he threw an NFL quality laser to Mitchell deep in our own territory that Mitchell dropped when the bama db timed his hit perfectly. 

    once Quinn settled down his feet after the first quarter and started to see/trust that our oline was there to play the best game they have in more than a decade, he did a really good job of delivering most of the time. Still some bad plays on the 3rd and short and 4th and short throwing to the only guy covered. But now that he’s starting to trust more than just worthy and sanders and the oline is putting in A+ pass protection performances, there’s some real potential for sustained offensive success. Great game from both lines last night. Looking forward to Hill’s season on D. 

    The important part of those throws (deep over the middle against man or quarters) is distance from the WR, not direction. If the receiver has to adjust their angle a bit, that's ok. The important thing is that it hits them in stride. Good throw + good adjustment = great play. Both of those deep shots hit the WRs in the hands and left the defensive backs with zero chance to impact the result. They weren't bad throws made right by the WRs. 

    Go watch some Mahomes to Hill highlights. Or any of the other elite NFL QB/WR combos. "Fuck it, [WR] down there somewhere" is a bit of a meme but also highlights that great scheme will get WRs in 1 on 1s with plenty of space so that throws don't have to be perfect. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 5 minutes ago, gmr548 said:


    Those were the good teams on the schedule. What they did against Kansas or a broken Oklahoma isn’t relevant in this context and you know it, as evidenced by you going to the “you’re hoping for a loss” nonsense.

    Gift from Bama and a great throw and catch from Ewers-Mitchell. Badly needed.

    Oh, the comment about you hoping for a loss was entirely personal and had nothing to do with last year's schedule (I don't actually dislike you as a poster, sorry, just the negativity gets old sometimes)

     

    Back to the game: Sark's calling a great game. I of course hope to sustain some more drives and wear them down. That'll do wonders for the run game. I still think our offense is advantaged against their defense (we're hitting deep stuff and have the quick and outside game to fall back on). If the defense can stay fresh and disciplined we got this 

  6. Just now, gmr548 said:


    My suspicion is the Texas offense will stall in the second half as it almost always has against god teams. If they can put together a couple more sustained scoring drives like their last one, and more importantly finish them with TDs, then yeah they’re in business.

    Basically they’re going to have to do things they’ve only shown they can’t thus far. We’ll find out if this team is different.

    We were a very good 3Q team last year. 4Q no, but you're generalizing past what evidence actually supports

  7. 9 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

    In the prediction thread I called for a halftime lead before Bama wears Texas down.

    Love the effort, Ewers is playing quite well; but leading 13-6 in a game you should probably be winning 17-3 at minimum, that’s how you lose. Just squandered an otherwise very encouraging half with a loss poor last two minutes. Don’t have a good feeling.

    Neg away.

    Also all the talk about Bama’s receivers being JAGs. At least they can catch. Worthy has has at least made some plays to make up for the dropped TD.

    very on brand post

     

    Let's go win this. Ten more points might put it out of reach for Bama. 

  8. 58 minutes ago, Chili dog said:

     

    It may have been posted earlier on the thread - I am just now checking in and have only read the last two pages - but I highly doubt we watched any Rice film last week. We looked unprepared in the first half. Then we made adjustments at halftime, got an insurmountable lead, and called off the dogs. I’m sure we’ve been preparing for Alabama for three weeks. 

     

    I’m sure Bama/Steele were being just as cagey and vanilla as we were last week. Neither team put anything on film that wasn’t absolutely necessary and intentional. 

    Y’all, they definitely prepped for Rice. Teams don’t just completely skip opponents. 
     

    Look at it another way: prep is a skill in and of itself. There’s a routine to game week. Watching film, installing the game plan, practice, etc. The game vs Rice is practice for Bama and prepping for Rice is practice for prepping against Bama. They’re not going to sacrifice that, especially when Bama has two news coordinators and a new QB, so all that prep work last week could have been a waste depending on what Bama does in week 1. 

    • Like 2
  9. 1 hour ago, Doc Daneeka said:

    The problem with a compact, imo, is that it essentially requires states where the issue is more important or where more resources can be brought to bear to give up those advantages. It’s asking them to shackle themselves without necessarily the kind of upside that might be present in a more typical trade scenario. That seems pretty unlikely short of the entire sport — and this is mostly about football pretty much everywhere — being at risk.

     

    I agree it's unlikely. It's just what I think would be the best way forward. At least each state would be equally represented in the governing body so maybe that could help with consensus-building. In my dream world, some of the SEC states like Texas, Alabama, and Florida come together for it and then start politicking smaller states like Missouri and Arkansas into joining. 

    1 hour ago, Ricky's one-hitter said:

    This warrants more discussion from people who know what the hell they're talking about

    Is it possible to establish a governing body through an existing entity? Say...the SEC? Other than facilitating the contractual obligations of member states, are there any restrictions on other activities they participate in? or regulate?

    At initial glance, this strikes me as the most legitimate and probable replacement for the NCAA at the P5 level. That said, I don't know shit about fuck, so...

    I have no idea about existing entities. The NCAA and conferences will only ever be able to govern around player eligibility and school participation (e.g., bowl bans, scholarships) in NCAA or conference events. And I have no idea where their authority actually falls for NIL.

    I don't think the end goal should be to replace the NCAA. It could happen with a conglomerate of the conferences, CFP, and March Madness (if the last two are even separate from the NCAA) but then there would still need to be other organizations that step up to handle the national championships for other sports. And it would also mean the conferences would start having to do a lot of stuff they don't currently. At least based on my understanding of how all these organizations operate. 

  10. FWIW, as someone studying public administration and policy, I think the best way forward with NIL is through interstate compacts or uniform state laws. Interstate compacts are the most legally binding form of cooperation between states. It's basically a contract between states in which they agree to work together on an issue. It be a common set of laws that each state must follow or the compact forms a governing body (agency or commission) that governs the issue between the states. The states cannot unilaterally decide to leave the compact. Uniform state laws allow states to opt in to a set of uniform standards. 

    A compact would be ideal but it might be too hard to bring a state like Missouri on board. The dynamics around inducements are different in states with a single university compared to those that have competing interests for recruits. 

    • Fuck You 2
  11. 2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

    Yes. I was referring to the NCAA guidelines, that there can be no inducement. And the only reason it doesn't "seem to matter" right now is that no one has really, really challenged it. But I'm guessing the second they try to ramrod a kid over it, it will get challenged. 

    Makes sense. I have no idea how it will play out once those challenges actually come. I'm actually really interested to see how these challenges start popping up. 

    One weird thing about the bill is they make it all about a student attending the school, not participating on the team like the Texas NIL bill. So to your point, if a kid is a highly ranked sophomore so they lock him up in a contract, but then he falls down the rankings or gets injured and enrolls as a normal student, there's going to be some unhappy folks. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Fuck You 2
  12. 2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

     

    I'm no attorney, so who knows what ends up being possible, but this is illegal period. Why you ask? NLI is basically profitting off of the Name, Image, and Likeness. That means it is promotional in nature. Marketing, advertising, etc. Having to pay back money for services rendered, by it's very nature I would think, would be a pretty clear indicator of inducement. Are you saying that the Ad I did for your car lot that aired for 3 months was no longer a valud advertisement using my image for those 3 months for which you paid me? That's inducement, and that is  legal. 

    And Missouri is a Right To Work State. Further complications if homeboy is trying to go work in another Right To Work State, like say Texas. 

    Anything can be written into a contract, sure, and both parties have to sign, that being said...man...I don't know how that doesn't appear to be obvious inducement. There's a reason no Texas recruits signs a contract or even discusses one until they are already fucking enrolled. Can't think Missouri would want to have any of these cases start going through the court system. 

     

    44 minutes ago, linux said:
    1. (1) No compensation to a student athlete for earning or attempting to earn compensation from the use of such student athlete's name, image, likeness rights, or athletic reputation shall be conditioned on such student athlete's athletic performance. Those providing compensation to a student athlete for the use of his or her name, image, likeness rights, or athletic reputation shall have the right to condition payment of that compensation on a student athlete's attendance at a particular postsecondary educational institution.

    It is 100% a pay for play law

    Presumably he can pay them back and flip, as I said on my first post it is not indentured servitude, maybe pay interest on the payment but more than that it runs afoul of other laws, and Missouri's NLI totals is way less than both UTs so that is why I see it likely, it is just a prediction though.

    Assuming perfectly rational actors and he flips at the last moment:
    He wins by getting money early, Mizzou wins by fabricating recruiting momentum, but at the end of the day they are a poor program and nothing real has changed. 

    Yeah, part of the confusion here is that we're using our Texas NIL understanding for a different state. The Missouri legislature is very open about the purpose of the law being to help Mizzou and other Missouri universities (are there others?) in recruiting. Inducements are illegal in Texas but that doesn't matter in Missouri. Linux already posted the text about it. I guess it might go against whatever the current NCAA rules or guidelines are but that doesn't seem like it matters. There are a couple clauses that I think specifically exempt both collectives and athletes from NCAA and conference rules. 

    Here's the relevant portion for high schoolers.

    image.thumb.png.0c0e2eaaeff6b6b14c49ed6a221ecad6.png

    Altogether, the intent of the bill reads to me that a recruit can start earning money as soon as they sign a written agreement that they will enroll in a Missouri college or university. Right now, we conceptualize that as meaning letter of intent or financial aid agreement because that is what exists through the NCAA. But I think the bill opens up a legal course to sign a new type contract between only the athlete and the paying party in which the athlete agrees to enroll at a Missouri university and earns money contingent upon that enrollment. 

    The 8/28 start date (might be misremembering the exact date) only matters this cycle because that's when the law starts. I imagine this will be a bigger advantage in the future because I think they'll be able to start paying HS athletes anytime they want. So that couple months of a head start could end up being 4 years if they think a kid is good enough. 

    Here's the bill. Relevant portion starts on page 8: https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills231/hlrbillspdf/1211S.10T.pdf

     

    • Fuck You 2
  13. 27 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

    I didn't read the article. I can't take Boyd seriously when the list of things he's been so wrong about (Whittington to safety, LJH should have stayed a RB, etc) that the well is forever poisoned. But what you just purported, that the Guards were the problem, would also knee-jerk be in disagreement with the Boyd premise of: Majors is the problem. 

    It's pretty lazy to not read the article and shit on it, even if it is Ian Boyd. His premise isn't that Majors is the problem. The title isn't declarative. It's a question - one that's pretty common in the Texas message board space. And his answer is that the issues were more about assignments and propped up when we were playing defenses that did a lot of slanting and post-snap movement: 

    "In none of those games was Majors’ inability to bully big defensive tackles the issue. Problems always centered around “who’s got who” execution when D-linemen would move after the snap and slant across gaps. In a related story, Texas was using first-year starter and true sophomore Hayden Conner as the left guard and true freshmen Cole Hutson and D.J. Campbell at right guard."

    • Hook 'Em 3
×
×
  • Create New...