2013 College Football off-season

[Old Style]

Sounds like a job for a graduate assistant.

[imb]

lmao riley cooper you dumb a hole

[ConstableRabbit]

Jesus, the whole Manziel family is nuts.

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9521439/heisman-winner-johnny-manziel-celebrity-derail-texas-aggies-season-espn-magazine

 

Yuck

 

Manziel is a spoiled, petulant, immature child, with serious anger issues, and parents who enable his bad behavior which causes him to handle his fame very poorly.

 

Does he really need bodyguards? Ridiculous.

It's really tiresome to hear "[person] is 20 -- he/she is just a kid!" as if it's an excuse for immature behavior. There are plenty of 20-year olds who are mature enough to not engage in that sort of stupid [expletive].

[Old Style]

Jesus, the whole Manziel family is nuts.

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9521439/heisman-winner-johnny-manziel-celebrity-derail-texas-aggies-season-espn-magazine

 

Yuck

 

Manziel is a spoiled, petulant, immature child, with serious anger issues, and parents who enable his bad behavior which causes him to handle his fame very poorly.

 

Does he really need bodyguards? Ridiculous.

It's really tiresome to hear "[person] is 20 -- he/she is just a kid!" as if it's an excuse for immature behavior. There are plenty of 20-year olds who are mature enough to not engage in that sort of stupid [expletive].

We usually referred to those people as "nerds" when I was at A&M.

[imb]

what's cracking me up about the manziel thing is how espn for some reason has taken the narrative position of like 'WE MADE HIM THIS MONSTER THAT HE IS."

 

like, the dude is not an angry immature idiot because of espn. whatever his deal is clearly stretches way before espn every put his [expletive] eating mug on their screen. i have no idea why seemingly everyone there is all of a sudden like lets pump the brakes on this, he's just a kid, it's not a big deal.

 

you're like sports tmz now espn, you made that choice.

[ConstableRabbit]

Jesus, the whole Manziel family is nuts.

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9521439/heisman-winner-johnny-manziel-celebrity-derail-texas-aggies-season-espn-magazine

 

Yuck

 

Manziel is a spoiled, petulant, immature child, with serious anger issues, and parents who enable his bad behavior which causes him to handle his fame very poorly.

 

Does he really need bodyguards? Ridiculous.

It's really tiresome to hear "[person] is 20 -- he/she is just a kid!" as if it's an excuse for immature behavior. There are plenty of 20-year olds who are mature enough to not engage in that sort of stupid [expletive].

We usually referred to those people as "nerds" when I was at A&M.

I don't really see the correlation between not being a spoiled brat and being a nerd, but it must be an A&M thing.

[ConstableRabbit]

btw:

He and Brant -- who'd gotten him into the fight that almost derailed his football career before it began -- tried to process the big hunk of bronze in the room. Breezy drank Heineken. Johnny drank Stella. They wore matching pajama bottoms...

 

wut.

[Old Style]

Jesus, the whole Manziel family is nuts.

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9521439/heisman-winner-johnny-manziel-celebrity-derail-texas-aggies-season-espn-magazine

 

Yuck

 

Manziel is a spoiled, petulant, immature child, with serious anger issues, and parents who enable his bad behavior which causes him to handle his fame very poorly.

 

Does he really need bodyguards? Ridiculous.

It's really tiresome to hear "[person] is 20 -- he/she is just a kid!" as if it's an excuse for immature behavior. There are plenty of 20-year olds who are mature enough to not engage in that sort of stupid [expletive].

We usually referred to those people as "nerds" when I was at A&M.

I don't really see the correlation between not being a spoiled brat and being a nerd, but it must be an A&M thing.

I thought you were referring to his partying "issues" that were discussed so I was making a joke. There is no excuse for throwing golf clubs, acting like a baby, etc.

[Andy]

Coaches poll:

 

1 Alabama (58)

2 Ohio St. (3)

3 Oregon

4 Stanford

5 Georgia

6 Texas A&M (1)

7 South Carolina

8 Clemson

9 Louisville

10 Florida

11 Notre Dame

12 Florida St.

13 LSU

14 Oklahoma St.

15 Texas

16 Oklahoma

17 Michigan

18 Nebraska

19 Boise St.

20 TCU

21 UCLA

22 Northwestern

23 Wisconsin

24 USC

25 Oregon St.

[Old Style]

I'll take #6. I wonder who voted us #1. I'm sure most of you will suspect Sumlin, but I would bet against that. My guess would be Kliff Kingsbury.

[Guest]

“@celebrityhottub: I assume we're ranking USC because it's fun to watch them drop out of the poll altogether.”

 

Also, Georgia loses their whole defense and starts the year at #5? Ok...

[Tracer Bullet]

“@celebrityhottub: I assume we're ranking USC because it's fun to watch them drop out of the poll altogether.”

 

Also, Georgia loses their whole defense and starts the year at #5? Ok...

 

They play @Clemson and USC (not to be confused with Southern Cal) to start the season. Methinks their top-5 status will be short lived. LSU in week 4 may put their top-25 status in jeopardy before they get out of September.

[Guest]

“@celebrityhottub: I assume we're ranking USC because it's fun to watch them drop out of the poll altogether.”

 

Also, Georgia loses their whole defense and starts the year at #5? Ok...

 

They play @Clemson and USC (not to be confused with Southern Cal) to start the season. Methinks their top-5 status will be short lived. LSU in week 4 may put their top-25 status in jeopardy before they get out of September.

 

Yeah, the first few weeks itself will make up for their incredibly easy schedule last year.

[Derwood]

So Alabama doesn't play Georgia, Florida or South Carolina, and has LSU at home. Oh, plus two FCS schools. If they don't sleepwalk their way to the NC game, it'll be a major upset

[Formerly Snayke]

The Johnny Football media phenomenon escalated quicker than any other manufactured phenomenon.

[Andy]

So Alabama doesn't play Georgia, Florida or South Carolina, and has LSU at home. Oh, plus two FCS schools. If they don't sleepwalk their way to the NC game, it'll be a major upset

Until the SEC knocks it off with this 6-1-1 schedule, there will always be at least a couple of top SEC teams that catch every scheduling break and ride it to a high ranking. Last year it was Georgia - this year Bama and South Carolina (dodges every decent SEC West team and gets Florida at home) are the winners of that honor.

 

ETA: As West teams go, A&M doesn't have it very bad either - they get Bama at home and don't have to play any good SEC East team (and play 8 home games because they don't feel like playing anyone OOC). That conference's scheduling philosophy seems intentionally designed to ensure 5 or 6 teams get into the top 12

[Guest]

I don't think the proportions of the schedule matter as long as there are 14 teams. There's always going to be teams who catch those breaks by being in the right division and missing the right teams(for an example from another conference last year, Northwestern).

[NOLA]

To be fair, I don't think it matters where Alabama plays aTm. There's the motivational factor after last season, plus the Aggies lost half their starters from last year. I will be very curious to see how Vegas sets the line in that game.

Sadly, I don't think anyone has a chance of beating Bama until the title game.

[Andy]

I don't think the proportions of the schedule matter as long as there are 14 teams. There's always going to be teams who catch those breaks by being in the right division and missing the right teams(for an example from another conference last year, Northwestern).

There will be, that is unavoidable, but at least the B1G is addressing that by moving to 9 league games, which will help defray the impact the schedule can have. (The ACC isn't, but until they get a title-contending team to come out of the league, who plays whom isn't really relevant nationally.)

 

When teams can get to the conference title game playing 2 teams with a pulse all season (Georgia last year and Alabama and South Carolina this year), that's not a good thing - except for the SEC's title streak, of course, which is why it won't change until somebody makes them, whether that's ESPN for SEC Network reasons or the playoff selection committee for SOS reasons.

[Derwood]

It'll never happen, but I'd love scheduling to be taken out of the hands of the school AD's. I know the conferences set the conference schedule, but the OOC has gotten so amazingly lame that it's hardly worth playing 90% of the games. One FCS school is ridiculous enough, but when a powerhouse like Bama can schedule TWO in one year? GIve me a break.

[NOLA]

I don't think the proportions of the schedule matter as long as there are 14 teams. There's always going to be teams who catch those breaks by being in the right division and missing the right teams(for an example from another conference last year, Northwestern).

There will be, that is unavoidable, but at least the B1G is addressing that by moving to 9 league games, which will help defray the impact the schedule can have. (The ACC isn't, but until they get a title-contending team to come out of the league, who plays whom isn't really relevant nationally.)

 

When teams can get to the conference title game playing 2 teams with a pulse all season (Georgia last year and Alabama and South Carolina this year), that's not a good thing - except for the SEC's title streak, of course, which is why it won't change until somebody makes them, whether that's ESPN for SEC Network reasons or the playoff selection committee for SOS reasons.

 

Wow. Ok.

I know some of you guys really, really dislike the SEC and there are a few very valid reasons for that, but that's just insane. To say teams like Vandy, Ole Miss, Clemson or even Va Tech are without a pulse is just letting your emotions get in the way of logic. I can't stand Ole Miss but that is going to be a damn good team this year. They may beat out LSU for 2nd in the West.

 

And the SEC's run on national titles won't end until someone beats them in the title game.

[Andy]

I don't think the proportions of the schedule matter as long as there are 14 teams. There's always going to be teams who catch those breaks by being in the right division and missing the right teams(for an example from another conference last year, Northwestern).

There will be, that is unavoidable, but at least the B1G is addressing that by moving to 9 league games, which will help defray the impact the schedule can have. (The ACC isn't, but until they get a title-contending team to come out of the league, who plays whom isn't really relevant nationally.)

 

When teams can get to the conference title game playing 2 teams with a pulse all season (Georgia last year and Alabama and South Carolina this year), that's not a good thing - except for the SEC's title streak, of course, which is why it won't change until somebody makes them, whether that's ESPN for SEC Network reasons or the playoff selection committee for SOS reasons.

 

Wow. Ok.

I know some of you guys really, really dislike the SEC and there are a few very valid reasons for that, but that's just insane. To say teams like Vandy, Ole Miss, Clemson or even Va Tech are without a pulse is just letting your emotions get in the way of logic. I can't stand Ole Miss but that is going to be a damn good team this year. They may beat out LSU for 2nd in the West.

 

And the SEC's run on national titles won't end until someone beats them in the title game.

Vanderbilt's success relative to their history of late has been remarkable, but the fact of the matter is they beat 0 teams who were any good last year. I meant conference opponents when I was referring to 'without a pulse', so I omitted Clemson and Va Tech, and that was my fault.

[Guest]

When teams can get to the conference title game playing 2 teams with a pulse all season (Georgia last year and Alabama and South Carolina this year), that's not a good thing - except for the SEC's title streak, of course, which is why it won't change until somebody makes them, whether that's ESPN for SEC Network reasons or the playoff selection committee for SOS reasons.

 

Georgia's schedule was worse than the norm(but not drastically so), and that's why they went to the Capital One Bowl. If they had beaten Bama in the conference title game they'd have as good a resume as any of the contenders last year.

 

Also, I'm failing to see a connection between an "undeserving" team getting to the SECCG or beyond being good for the SEC's title streak.

[wekse]

guys, college football [expletive] sucks.

 

that is all.

[Andy]

Also, I'm failing to see a connection between an "undeserving" team getting to the SECCG or beyond being good for the SEC's title streak.

In a nutshell, an extra conference game on the schedule means half the teams in the league get one more loss. That extra loss, depending on which teams take it, could make the difference between the SEC winning another title and not ever having the chance. If Bama had played in Athens last year instead of playing Western Kentucky, maybe they lose that game. All else being equal, that would've sent a 2-loss team from the West to the SEC title game, and that game would no longer have been a de facto semifinal, but an elimination game for Georgia.