sleeper;1829357 wrote:What's Fournette's demand? A 3rd rounder and out of the league in 3 years?

He's an injury prone RB in a passing league. No thanks.

Now I know that's your own thoughts, and I tend to agree he's a little banged up. But you can't honestly believe he's going in the 3rd round, right?

sleeper;1829357 wrote:What's Fournette's demand? A 3rd rounder and out of the league in 3 years?

He's an injury prone RB in a passing league. No thanks.

I think you just hit on whom the browns will be drafting.....

sleeper;1829357 wrote:What's Fournette's demand? A 3rd rounder and out of the league in 3 years?

He's an injury prone RB in a passing league. No thanks.

This has nothing to do with the argument. He's a first round pick with no benefit to playing college football anymore. Actually, your assertion that he's a bust and will be out of the league is just more incentive for him to protect the small fortune he will make being drafted that high.

thavoice;1829361 wrote:I think you just hit on whom the browns will be drafting.....

no, they will not

vball10set;1829366 wrote:no, they will not

Yeah, probably not.

Unless a homeless man gives the browns front office another draft tip this year to draft him that early!

Zeke playing as well as he has I think helps the stock of some RB's this year as it makes them relevant again.

thavoice;1829344 wrote:Eh, even back in the day not many bowls meant anything really.

Pre-BCS, maybe 2 bowls meant something. RARELY was it ever a winner-take-all national champion. If the top team won against whomever their conference was slated against, they typically were the champs. MAYBE the bowl game with #2 meant something but only if the top team got beat.

Then in the BCS there was 1 bowl game that really meant something.


Now we have 3 games that mean something.

Highly disagree. Back even 10 years ago before the insane bowl proliferation it was a much bigger deal to go to bowls. Also the games used to be for instance Big 10 #4 vs SEC #4 as the bids so you would get great matchups. IMO we need to go back to that instead of just throwing random teams into bowls like the Miami Bowl. IMO Toledo vs Tulsa would have been a little more watchable.

But also the MAC used to only get two bowl bids (GMAC and Motor City) so seeing BG in a bowl would be a huge deal. Now there's so many of them every 6-6 team has to go lol

Classyposter58;1829370 wrote:Highly disagree. Back even 10 years ago before the insane bowl proliferation it was a much bigger deal to go to bowls. Also the games used to be for instance Big 10 #4 vs SEC #4 as the bids so you would get great matchups. IMO we need to go back to that instead of just throwing random teams into bowls like the Miami Bowl. IMO Toledo vs Tulsa would have been a little more watchable.

But also the MAC used to only get two bowl bids (GMAC and Motor City) so seeing BG in a bowl would be a huge deal. Now there's so many of them every 6-6 team has to go lol

Yeah, years ago it was a much bigger deal to go to a bowl game because there werent as many. Now you go .500 and you are in. Not a huge accomplishment. Hell, there have been some years that they ran the risk of not even having enough bowl eligible teams with how many bowl games there were.


When I was young, and I presume I am older than you, yeah it did seem like it was a much bigger deal for a few reasons. The first as I just stated, and the second being as fans it was a time where we could watch a lot of CFB but now throughout the season we get games all the freaking time. "Back in the day" you may not get to see a certain school on tv play, but hell now MAC teams have their own deal with ESPN and are on each week.


As for the meaning of the bowl games....I stand by my original comment. Much of the tradition went away with the BCS and rotating championship game and it was an honor for the big ten champ to play the pac 10 champ in the rose bowl. Yeah, that was a big deal and much of that reason was because there wasnt anything else to play for unless you were the top ranked team in CFB. 2nd ranked just had to hope for a loss by the top ranked team.

like_that;1829338 wrote:Classy jerks off to Russillo.

I feel there are about 10 of us on here that could work together and be better than Russillo and Co

thavoice;1829374 wrote:Yeah, years ago it was a much bigger deal to go to a bowl game because there werent as many. Now you go .500 and you are in. Not a huge accomplishment. Hell, there have been some years that they ran the risk of not even having enough bowl eligible teams with how many bowl games there were.


When I was young, and I presume I am older than you, yeah it did seem like it was a much bigger deal for a few reasons. The first as I just stated, and the second being as fans it was a time where we could watch a lot of CFB but now throughout the season we get games all the freaking time. "Back in the day" you may not get to see a certain school on tv play, but hell now MAC teams have their own deal with ESPN and are on each week.


As for the meaning of the bowl games....I stand by my original comment. Much of the tradition went away with the BCS and rotating championship game and it was an honor for the big ten champ to play the pac 10 champ in the rose bowl. Yeah, that was a big deal and much of that reason was because there wasnt anything else to play for unless you were the top ranked team in CFB. 2nd ranked just had to hope for a loss by the top ranked team.

Yeah Mississippi State and North Texas both are 5-7 and in bowls this season. IMO the NCAA should just step in and limit bowls at half of the number of teams. We have 128 teams so 32 bowls would allow half to make it. 40 is way too much

Classyposter58;1829381 wrote:Yeah Mississippi State and North Texas both are 5-7 and in bowls this season. IMO the NCAA should just step in and limit bowls at half of the number of teams. We have 128 teams so 32 bowls would allow half to make it. 40 is way too much

I read a piece last week how some bowls are complaining about the lack of sponsorship, or not getting sponsors until very late, and blame it on the playoff system when in reality it is just the sheer number of games that is to blame.

thavoice;1829383 wrote:I read a piece last week how some bowls are complaining about the lack of sponsorship, or not getting sponsors until very late, and blame it on the playoff system when in reality it is just the sheer number of games that is to blame.

Lol well no one is at these games. Let's be honest thousands of people in Toledo aren't saving their money to take a long weekend vacation in Montgomery to watch their Rockets play in a bowl.

Boca Raton Bowl should be a shootout tonight. Field is absolutely terrible though

Benny The Jet;1829360 wrote:Now I know that's your own thoughts, and I tend to agree he's a little banged up. But you can't honestly believe he's going in the 3rd round, right?

He'll probably go in the first round because he has built a name for himself.

3rd round is where I value him though.

Azubuike24;1829363 wrote:This has nothing to do with the argument. He's a first round pick with no benefit to playing college football anymore. Actually, your assertion that he's a bust and will be out of the league is just more incentive for him to protect the small fortune he will make being drafted that high.

He's the type of idiot that will be homeless after his 3 year NFL career.

I want no part of this player. I'd rather draft a kicker in the 1st round than this trash.

That's great. It wasn't the conversation. The conversation was...why would he play in the bowl game?

Azubuike24;1829465 wrote:That's great. It wasn't the conversation. The conversation was...why would he play in the bowl game?

Because they can be a hell of a bump in your draft stock. Look at Jamarcus Russell, the guy has a decent senior season but absolutely shreds Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl and boom he's gotta be the #1 pick over Brady Quinn who then fell like a rock in the first round

Or shred your knee and slide from top 5 to the mid 30s..

We're talking about running backs here. The tape and body of work is out there. The meaningless bowl game will not significantly affect their draft position.

Classyposter58;1829381 wrote:Yeah Mississippi State and North Texas both are 5-7 and in bowls this season. IMO the NCAA should just step in and limit bowls at half of the number of teams. We have 128 teams so 32 bowls would allow half to make it. 40 is way too much

Why shouldn't the marketplace rule? If the dumbass fans don't have the self-discipline not to tune into crapfests, why should they expect someone else to end them. Watch a movie. Read a book. Go out with a girl (kidding).

Tonight's the first bowl I actually care about, as Ohio plays in whatever game being the second-best MAC team gets you against *RANDOM SUN BELT TEAM*.

Last night while watching Idaho there was a great conversation regarding the economics of FBS football. It was a result of Idaho announcing they will be dropping to FCS, I believe next year. The FBS landscape may really narrow even further soon. Universities are going to have to scrutinize the benefit to the institution of being FBS. It was stated that 84% of FBS schools still lose money. The question is how is that loss leader impacting economically the university in other areas...if at all.

I think I remember them saying the average cost per player in FBS was a little over $100K per year while in FCS it was around $40K.

Con_Alma;1829685 wrote:Last night while watching Idaho there was a great conversation regarding the economics of FBS football. It was a result of Idaho announcing they will be dropping to FCS, I believe next year. The FBS landscape may really narrow even further soon. Universities are going to have to scrutinize the benefit to the institution of being FBS. It was stated that 84% of FBS schools still lose money. The question is how is that loss leader impacting economically the university in other areas...if at all.

I think I remember them saying the average cost per player in FBS was a little over $100K per year while in FCS it was around $40K.

I think it has a lot to do with geography, they are already members of the Big Sky for all other sports.

Con_Alma;1829685 wrote:Last night while watching Idaho there was a great conversation regarding the economics of FBS football. It was a result of Idaho announcing they will be dropping to FCS, I believe next year. The FBS landscape may really narrow even further soon. Universities are going to have to scrutinize the benefit to the institution of being FBS. It was stated that 84% of FBS schools still lose money. The question is how is that loss leader impacting economically the university in other areas...if at all.

I think I remember them saying the average cost per player in FBS was a little over $100K per year while in FCS it was around $40K.

A lot of drawbacks being DI. Other than touting you have a DI program, there isnt much reason for Idaho to have one. Drop down, be able to compete and go forward.

thavoice;1829733 wrote:A lot of drawbacks being DI. Other than touting you have a DI program, there isnt much reason for Idaho to have one. Drop down, be able to compete and go forward.

Big Sky is a D1 conference.

Sonofanump;1829821 wrote:Big Sky is a D1 conference.

True, but it is 1aa conference. Often when people say D1, they are implying 1a.

In some odd news...Les Miles to interview at Minnesota. B1G could have some major names for coaches.