http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5995754
Third straight year the projected #1 stays to play another season.
Third straight year the projected #1 stays to play another season.
2010/2011 NCAA Football Thread
- Thread starter Skyraider22
- Start date
- Status
^He's taking a gamble that there will be a lockout. There will be a draft even if there's a lockout.
Jimbo is gone. They will hire a Buddy Teevins type to replace Jimbo. Andrew Luck's draft stock will plummet.
Jake Locker is probably on the horn sending Luck an Escort as a thank you gift (the ladies on "the Farm"...slim pickings my friends...)
Jimbo is gone. They will hire a Buddy Teevins type to replace Jimbo. Andrew Luck's draft stock will plummet.
Jake Locker is probably on the horn sending Luck an Escort as a thank you gift (the ladies on "the Farm"...slim pickings my friends...)
This is totally true. I think he's a fool for staying - he has to learn a whole new system and new plays with a new coaching staff...He's not going to shine as much this year. Stupid idea.
This is why Jimmy Clausen left Notre Dame when Wies did. Not because the next coach would be worse, but because he looked mighty good then, and wouldn't look so good the next year.
This will hurt Luck in the long run.
Well, just keep in mind there is a difference when a coach leaves versus a coaching getting fired from the returning players' perspectives.
A coach getting canned usually does mean a new coaching staff, possibly new system, different chemistry etc.
When a the HC takes a new job..there is the opportunity to just promote from within and keep everything the same.
If either David Shaw or Vic Fangio are promoted to HC after Harbaugh...not much will change for Luck IMO.
A fair point. I'm still sceptical. I think enough will change that he's not going to shine next year like he did this.
But we'll see. If he's still a projected #1 pick next year at this time, I'll buy you a beer.
:glugglug: Keep in mind, Luck and the scouting on his talent won't change unless he gets hurt.
'They' thought Luck would struggle/get exposed this year without Gerhart...he's done better, finished with a better record and 2nd in the Heisman balloting himself.:dunno:
Interesting read about the finances of the bowl games:
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/78756
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/78756
I often wondered why, on a few occasions, a team turned down a bowl bid. This must be the reason. If you're playing in a lower-tier bowl and it's obvious you will lose money by playing the game, it just makes sense to stay at home.
I think the article only focuses on bowl payouts which is not the only revenue generated with a bowl berth for the schools in most cases.
I know in most cases though when major schools turn down bowl bids it's because they want to keep a certain standard for the school.
Most programs will accept bowl invitations even if the revenue is modest because it gives them a head start on the next season with the extra practices.
That’s the only reason I could see him staying is because of a potential lockout. Otherwise in his circumstances it’s a pretty stupid decision because it has high risk with very little reward.
Yes, but I don't know if the rules for signing people to contracts would be the same or if draftees would even be allowed to sign with a team until a lockout is over.
Yes, but I don't know if the rules for signing people to contracts would be the same or if draftees would even be allowed to sign with a team until a lockout is over.
Andrew Luck is taking a risk here. I can't put him down, I applaud him wanting to finish his degree and spend another year in college. But I remember Matt Leinart staying in college and having his draft status fall. The same thing is about to happen to Jake Locker, who this time last year was a top 10 pick who some people thought was a better prospect than Sam Bradford. I'm not convinced Jake Locker is even a 1st round pick this year. And speaking of Sam Bradford, he came back and he barely played because of injuries that he's lucky weren't worse and that the QB class was weak.
And btw I'm surprised everyone has Blaine Gabbert ahead of Ryan Mallett. Mallett is huge, with a strong arm, and played against superior defenses. Not to mention his stats were flat out better. I could totally seeing Seattle taking him, by making the playoffs they lost about 15 spots in draft order, to about where Mallett is projected.....
And btw I'm surprised everyone has Blaine Gabbert ahead of Ryan Mallett. Mallett is huge, with a strong arm, and played against superior defenses. Not to mention his stats were flat out better. I could totally seeing Seattle taking him, by making the playoffs they lost about 15 spots in draft order, to about where Mallett is projected.....
Matt Leinart - I think he based his decision on a belief that he would win a second Heisman, USC would win another championship and that would enhance his status in the draft and he'd get more money. He was wrong.
Andrew Luck - He says he wants to stay to finish his degree, but I think he has deeper reasons. It's possible he may know that Harbaugh is either staying, or that if he leaves, that Stanford may promote from within and keep the offense as is. Also, as it looks right now, Stanford's schedule next year seems fairly easy, except for Oregon. The possibility of an NFL lock-out may be part of it, but I really think he wants more experience and a chance to make a run for a Heisman of his own.
Eh, Locker will still be a 1st rounder. A lot of his struggles this season are attributed to Huskies having hardly any talent on that team(WRs/TEs with a serious case of the butterfingers, a defense that couldn't really stop anybody, and an offensive line that couldn't pass block a pee-wee league defense). The Senior Bowl practices and Combine interviews are key for him, though. He'll probably throw at the Combine, but that's utterly meaningless.
Jake Locker = Mark Brunell-- a very solid QB, nothing spectacular, but definitely a starter in the NFL.
Andrew Luck would be the front runner for the Heisman next year. Presumably though he will be the #1 pick this year and that means the most money on the rookie salary scale (which is one of the issues of contention; the rookie salary scale is going to be trimmed bigtime). If he stays at Stanford has a mediocre year, bye bye upper end money. ALso, there's no guarantee that the top 3 teams next year will need QBs....:dunno:
Andrew Luck would be the front runner for the Heisman next year. Presumably though he will be the #1 pick this year and that means the most money on the rookie salary scale (which is one of the issues of contention; the rookie salary scale is going to be trimmed bigtime). If he stays at Stanford has a mediocre year, bye bye upper end money. ALso, there's no guarantee that the top 3 teams next year will need QBs....:dunno:
Even if they trim the salary scale, they'll probably get around it with a HUGE signing bonus.
Honestly, the only way I see the NFL trimming payroll effectively is either collusion among the owners, or trimming the rosters by having some players playing more than one position. In reality, I don't see either of those ever happening.
They don't want to deduce the salaries as much as put in place a slotted rookie pay scale. That way you wouldn't have people at the top of the draft making as much as the very top people in the league while not playing a single down in the NFL yet.
- Status
