Search results

Stanford football has been inconsistent over the last 20 years but has had more success than we have overall. They have been pretty bad in the last three years. I don't follow recruiting closely, so I rely on other sites. 247 has our last 4 classes ranked (most recent first) 33, 60, 54, 47...

Announcers thought one INT was on the receiver, one on McCord. Pick six was huge and was a key difference in the game's outcome. Amazing that pressure can make a great QB look pedestrian at times. Also, credit to Stanford's defense for totally shutting down Syracuse run game, making them...

What metric are you using to conclude that Stanford's recruiting is way lower? 247 doesn't think so. I agree Stanford had a better defensive plan and execution. Their offense did enough to win.

We don't know that the ACC is considering it in the sense of viewing it as a serious framework to work with. All we know is that. per sources, it's "being discussed". David McKenzie made an insightful comment about the context of the "discussion": "One thing that seems lost on all the rumors...

Obligatory Link: The Ratio

Interestingly, only one of the teams without a sack has already played 4 games. Rutgers has only played 2.

If you notice the scramble for some teams to get into the P4, and also the P2's actions to separate themselves from the ACC and B12, it's clear that the leadership of the teams and conferences see where this is heading. You don't want to be on the outside looking in when things settle out.

The "Ratio" is 56/44 M/F for this semester's freshman class. My how times have changed.

This. The fact that KQ has some annoying habits when he asks questions, which I've previously joked about on this board, has nothing to do with the issue between WT and KQ. Not a subscriber but I've listened to KQ's podcasts and they seem pretty even-handed and occasionally insightful. Yes, he...

I made a similar comment based on another article that quoted the judge. I'm guessing the judge thinks that limits on NIL from third parties runs afoul of labor law.

If what you're saying is that our season doesn't hinge on the Louisville game, because we could still lose 4 of the next five most winnable games, then I agree. I don't know if we will be favored by the time those games happen, but right now I see 4 teams we should have a decent chance of...

You and @forensicbuzz are not wrong about what needs to happen for us and the ACC. However, I was responding to the comment that 6 of the top 7 teams in the current poll are SEC. They’re all still undefeated and will likely stay that way until they start playing each other. By that point they...

No reason to dispute this ranking based on what I've seen so far this season.

Another analogy - like having a valuable employee who threatened to quit unless they got a bump in salary. You then give them a potential bump based on a new performance bonus structure ("success initiative") that they agree to, but then they turn around and threaten to quit again if they don't...

You're welcome to check out unless you want to continue trying to get in the last word. But your post above begs a response. I concede that in our initial discourse on this topic, as you quoted above, you expressed confusion over my point (my bad for not being clear). I attempted to clarify...

Hopefully, we should see where this settlement lands fairly soon in legal timeframes, although it could still be months away. Based on the judge's comments, who kicked the NCAA's proposal back to them for improvements, the sticking point in their original proposal had to do with limits on...

Illegal bagmen may always be involved, but can they compete with basically unlimited NIL? I mean, there's only so much money to go around. Can the $100 handshake compete with the Lambo?

I get that. From the NCAA (emphasis mine): "Any institutional NIL payments would apply toward the 22% cap. Third parties may continue to enter into NIL agreements with student-athletes." Perhaps it's @Techster that is missing some of the nuances. My back-and-forth argument was based on this...

I'm confused. Buy into what? Their own proposal? I thought the latest proposed deal came from FSU and Clemson, and the conference presidents are discussing it. What am I missing?

Aside from your changing the NCAA's language in your response ("may" to "will"), can you speculate on why the NCAA's attorneys, who presumably are well-steeped in antitrust and labor law, would propose a cap? I'm not arguing that a cap doesn't violate federal statutes, but am genuinely curious...