NFBuck said:

They certainly have a type.

Click to expand...

Locker room material is never a bad in thing. Is at TCUN only because of money, and now he is all in. Sounds legit.

I honestly was leaning towards 27 but like Heisman mentioned not having the minimum inning setting before the draft influenced some drafters. What about going with 18?

Looks like Fran McCaffery is toast.

ORD_Buckeye said:

No big surprise there. With the Ivies, Johns Hopkins etc moving back to required test scores, it was inevitable that it would filter down to the next level.

I forget which one of the Ivies it was, but they declared that the kids who didn't submit test scores had markedly worse freshman years than those who did.

Click to expand...

Might have been Brown (the one you least expect!), but I don't remember for sure.

I know MIT very quickly was saying that this didn't lead to better outcomes. That one I remember.

AKAK said:

Ohio State will once again require ACT/SAT testing for admissions

The university said it will not rely solely on test scores when deciding on admissions and will comprehensively review each applicant.

www.10tv.com

Click to expand...

No big surprise there. With the Ivies, Johns Hopkins etc moving back to required test scores, it was inevitable that it would filter down to the next level.

I forget which one of the Ivies it was, but they declared that the kids who didn't submit test scores had markedly worse freshman years than those who did.

heisman said:

Sure, but my problem is changing it after the draft. I literally read the rules and drafted accordingly. I would have drafted 2 or more starters, based on an existing minimum IP requirement.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with the fact that not having it set before the draft might have impacted draft results. That is another reason it set the minimum at a smaller number so that it won’t impact anyone that drafted with that strategy in mind, while at the same time, not allow someone who had their relievers get 3 saves with a 0.0 ERA, 0.33 WHIP, and 18.0 K/9 by Tuesday night sit their pitching staff the rest of the week because they think they have 4 pitching categories locked down.

NJ-Buckeye said:

View attachment 63919

Click to expand...

So if I'm reading this right.....Michigan's 2 options are:
1. Accept whatever punishment the NCAA hands down.....punishment that is based partially on facts without fully supporting evidence. Evidence that everybody knows exists, but nobody can prove.
2. Sue.......which will then reveal that evidence to the world, proving the NCAA's case for them

Please, for the love of justice, bring that fucking hammer down. PLEASE.

ScriptOhio said:

In both play-in structures, there is no outright conference champion. In one iteration, the two winners would be declared co-champs. In another, a team with the best record could be declared the "regular-season" champion.
.
.
.
continued

Click to expand...

Reminds me of 2014. Remember when the Big 12 did not have a conference championship game, and just said that the winner of the regular season is the champion? And then they came out and said something like, "We're going to wait for XYZ to endorse who we think our champion is." The champion had no bearing on the playoffs, so the playoff committee just kinda said, "Okay, cool. But we don't care."
It'd be funny if no Big 12 teams make the playoff because the committee got too confused on who the Big 12 champion is.

Ahiacitian said:

Last year was different because it was roto scoring so we didn’t have minimums. We actually had a maximum number of innings pitched and games played to keep everyone on a level playing field and prevent players from accumulating too many stats.

Click to expand...

Sure, but my problem is changing it after the draft. I literally read the rules and drafted accordingly. I would have drafted 2 or more starters, based on an existing minimum IP requirement.

Big 12 back to divisions? League mulls College Football Playoff AQ options with play-in games at forefront​

With CFP changes on the horizon, the Big 12 is considering its options to find its place​

The Big 12 will continue to grow. That is, if you believe the possibilities going forward regarding automatic qualifiers in the College Football Playoff.

That's a reference to possibly more Big 12 games, not more Big 12 teams as the format and structure of the CFP begin to take shape for the 2026 season when the new six-year deal with ESPN begins.

Some are almost resigned to the fact there will be automatic qualifiers in the field at the urging of the Big Ten and SEC. Their proposed model of 4-4-2-2-1-1 means four AQs each for the Big Ten and SEC, two each for the ACC and Big 12, one at-large spot and one for the highest-ranked Group of Five conference champion.

After making the rounds this week at the Big 12 Tournament, it's clear the conference has begun to consider its place in that new world. Commissioner Brett Yormark has not publicly committed to the AQ model for his conference, but it's fair to say every league has at least considered the concept of play-in games for those AQ spots.

"Let me ask you something," Yormark replied to a questioner Tuesday at a tournament kickoff press conference, "do you think I'm shy or no?"

CBS Sports reported on the details of play-in games in December. While the possibilities are preliminary -- and almost endless -- at this point, there are at least two models to consider to determine those two Big 12 automatic qualifiers.

1) The top four regular-season teams qualify with the No. 1 seed playing the No. 4 seed and No. 2 playing No. 3. The two winners on that championship weekend in December would advance to the CFP.

Using last year's standings, these would be the matchups:

• No. 1 Arizona State vs. No. 4 Colorado
• No. 2 Iowa State vs. No. 3 BYU

2) The 16-team league could split into two divisions, looking a lot like the old Big 12. One possibility is the two first-place teams in each division would qualify along with the teams with next two best records. (Don't even start with tiebreakers in that scenario).

Let's take it a step further and dream up the composition of those two divisions based on geography …

Big 12 West​

• Arizona State
• Arizona
• BYU
• Utah
• Texas Tech
• Colorado
• TCU
• Houston

Big 12 East​

• Baylor
• Iowa State
• Kansas
• Kansas State
• UCF
• Cincinnati
• Oklahoma State
• West Virginia

Again, based on last year's standings the matchups would go the same way:

• Arizona State vs. Colorado
• Iowa State vs. BYU

In that setting, each team would play a seven-team, round-robin schedule against the teams in its division. There would be two crossover games. You're way ahead of things in the scenario above if you've already noticed three of the four play-in teams would come from the West division.

In both play-in structures, there is no outright conference champion. In one iteration, the two winners would be declared co-champs. In another, a team with the best record could be declared the "regular-season" champion.
.
.
.
continued

Winners: Steelers and Mason Rudolph​

It'll be one of the most ironic situations in recent NFL history if Rudolph is now called to lead the Steelers offense after Pittsburgh initially drafted him to possibly be Ben Roethlisberger's successor back in 2018. The Steelers reportedly came to terms with Rudolph (who spent the 2024 season with the Titans) on a two-year, $8 million deal on Thursday.

The signing of Rudolph accomplishes two things for the Steelers. It gives them a backup plan if the Rodgers' deal falls through. The Steelers could then start Rudolph in 2025 while drafting a quarterback next month. If Rodgers does come to Pittsburgh, Rudolph can reprise his previous role as a reliable backup who has an 8-4-1 record as the Steelers' starting quarterback.

Nutriaitch said:

another Sand storm

this is like 4 or 5 in last couple weeks.
spring in the desert

Click to expand...

Had a friend who was flying to Phoenix last week get diverted to El Paso for an emergency landing due to a sandstorm.