aphilso1

Rebounding does seem like the area that we're most likely to take a step backwards. In a perimeter-oriented offense, you get a lot of long rebounds. That benefits teams that have size at the guard positions and Banton and Teddy certainly capitalized. Banton was also an exceptional defensive rebounder for his position. Also, while I like Lat and think he's poised to take a step forward offensively, he's not a great rebounder relative to his position. Your starting PF is often your team's best rebounder, and he is below average at boxing out and average-ish at snagging 50/50 boards. DW, even undersized a bit, can fight for position inside and neutralize the other team's big...but somebody has to actually bring the rebound down. I have a weird feeling that Trey will be one of our top 2 statistical rebounders. Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

I don't think Favors plays into OKC's long-term plans. The Jazz needed cap space to resign Mike Conley, and cap space is something OKC has in spades. That was the sole reason the Favors trade happened. I fully expect Favors to be traded again mid-season to a challenging team that needs a backup big man. He will play for OKC enough to show he still has trade value, but not so much as to stunt the young players' development. Also, Favors hasn't averaged over 30 mpg since '15-'16. So even if Favors starts next to Bazley, there's a good chance that Roby gets more minutes than Favors.

Does it appear that he is going to play college basketball, or is he leaning toward the NBL contract? I couldn't find anything more recent than this: https://www.pennlive.com/highschoolsports/2021/06/whats-next-for-chance-westry-a-million-dollars-and-a-pro-contract-could-be-one-option.html

Who is blasting Texas and OU? University Presidents' and ADs' ire seem aimed at the SEC, not at Texas and OU (with the one exception being Okie State...and understandably so). There's a difference between realignment that steals a team from another conference, and realignment that destroys another conference. I think that is why you see the non-SEC powers all banding together right now.

Hold up. Do we actually have a UVA troll on this thead? I didn't realize there even was such a thing. Does this mean we've made the big time? I'm personally taking this as a sign of validation that the program has turned around. Also, I hate to break some bad news @Norm Peterson, but I'm pretty sure our new troll was referring to Thomas Jefferson, not Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee. That being said, Thomas Jefferson was an overrated, French boot lickin', hypocritical narcissist. So that doesn't exactly sway the pendulum very much in the Commonwealth's favor.

Bingo. The rest of the country isn't going to care about two historical programs with a 5-6 record playing each other. Yeah, the SEC will be able to ensure that a 10-1 team playing a 9-2 team is must-see TV, but there will be just as many matchups of teams with great names and mediocre records. Fans outside of SEC country are not going to watch that.

Not sure what happens if the non-SEC caucus splits up. There are lots of possibilities. a. Elite teams from PAC/B1G/ACC form a super conference to challenge the SEC, maybe those two conferences leave the NCAA, or maybe not b. Elite teams continue to trickle over to the SEC, until the rest of the NCAA is basically a minor league while the SEC is the major league c. no further changes. d. Clemson and FSU jump to the SEC, and then no further changes. e. ***schools in SEC become disenfranchised and decide to move back to their historical conferences f. lots of other possibilities I do think it's worth noting that conference realignment is not a recent phenomena. Look at schools like Goergia Tech and how much their affiliation has changed over the decades. Or heck, even Tulane used to be an SEC member. Now all that being said, I think it is actually more likely that the non-SEC caucus holds together. University Presidents are academicians by trade, and don't want to waste all of their time on this sports stuff. Stability in athletics is important to them. And I think (outside of the SEC) we are finally starting to see the collective mentality change from "add whoever we can to the conference to get more money" to "maybe tradition, stability, and local rivalries are important too." And they are just at the very beginning of starting to flesh out what that means. At a minimum I think the PAC/B1G/ACC will agree to not poach teams from each others' conferences. But probably much more than that. My guess is you will see a lot of pushback against the SEC over the next few years. No more playing "neutral site" games in the SEC's backyard. Prioritizing scheduling the other major conferences over the SEC. Maybe even some subtle downgrading of the SEC teams when playoff rankings first come out. That sort of thing. Nothing egregious. No official boycotts of scheduling SEC teams. Just a little bit of a poke in the eye to say "hey, we're sick of your crap." EDIT: I wanted to expand on that asterisked thought at the top and forgot to. Let's say the SEC gets what it wants and also adds Clemson and FSU. Well there's only one team that can win each game, and at that point they would have a whole lot of teams in the conference that expect to win 10+ games every year. Many of those teams are going to be a whole lot closer to 6-6 than they are to 11-1. There's just not enough games against Vandy and Ol' Miss to keep those proud programs afloat. I think a very real possibility is that the SEC could find itself with a bunch of unhappy programs that eventually decide to break the conference up. Proud programs like beating middle-of-the-pack teams a whole lot more than they like losing to elite teams.

You're making some assumptions that don't appear true. You keep hinting that the SEC adding members gives them more votes. That is false. The NCAA Board of Governors currently includes only a single voting member of the SEC, the UGA President. Even if they were to increase that number to two or three, the SEC will still be woefully outnumbered when it comes to voting on NCAA legislation. Source: http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=EXEC And let me again reference that interview with Washington State President Kirk Schultz, who happens to be a guy with a lot of clout considering he is both on the PAC-12 Executive Committee and the College Football Playoff Board of Managers. He states two main points: 1. The non-SEC conferences are united in their anger at the SEC. That tells me that the SEC is most certainly not in a position to shove legislation down the throats of the rest of the conferences. That's one SEC vote versus 18 votes from other conferences, as long as the non-SEC caucus stays united. 2. Schools have to actually add value to the conference, or else they aren't worth taking. A bigger conference is not inherently a better conference. To quote Schultz, “If we add teams just to try to keep up with somebody else but those teams don’t grow our revenue base, do we really need to add them?"

Intriguing write-up. Does this indicate we are not in a good spot with Traudt and Green?

That's an interesting thought. I'm not sure how the PAC12 adding teams like TTU, KSU and TCU will accomplish that though. If the PAC12/B1G/ACC want to operate as a political voting block, they can do that without the PAC12 having to absorb deadweight Big12 schools. And this latest powerplay by the SEC seems to have united everyone else. See below quote from Washington State President-- “What the SEC has done is unify the other conferences in a way that nothing else could have, in terms of working together. A lot of people now are very concerned about the predatory nature of the SEC. More presidents are talking. There’s a lot of back and forth.” https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/04/wsu-president-predatory-sec-has-unified-other-leagues-pac-12-expansion-depends-on-institutional-fit-and-revenue-potential/ Why? What tangible benefit is there in adding teams just for the sake of having a larger conference? Agreed the B12 is dead. Agreed that screwing over like-minded conferences like the P12 would be foolish. Just not sure about that middle statement and whether it is actually worth poaching any B12 teams. Kansas seems like a fit for the B1G from a basketball perspective while not spreading the geographic footprint too much. That probably makes up for the deadweight of their football program. I assume we'd need to add one more team to keep an even number. I just don't see any of the other seven teams as adding value for the either the P12 or B1G.

I don't know why the PAC12 would want the remaining eight Big12 teams. Adding the leftovers from a dying conference would not help the PAC12's reputation at all. It would do the opposite and water it down. I understand that it would create more matchups in earlier TV time slots, which in theory may boost TV revenue. But when you realize those games are being played in places like Lubbock TX and Manhattan KS, I highly doubt that theoretical TV revenue boost becomes a reality. Big12 viewership was almost exclusively tied to games that UT and OU were playing in. Games like Arizona at West Virginia will be ignored by the country as a whole. Negatives: -Increased travel costs -Watered down competition level -replacing historic rivalry games with cross-country snoozefests Positives: -Playing games earlier in the day when East Coasters are still awake Just seems like a bad idea if you're the PAC12.

This is really good analysis. As fans, I think we tend to fixate on things like attendance and culture. But logistics probably play just as big (if not bigger) of a part in these decisions. Transporting fans to the WC hosting city and convenient public transit within that city really should be upper echelon factors. Can you imagine traveling to a country where you don't know the language, and then finding out that to get around from your hotel to the entertainment district to the soccer stadium, your best bet is to download an app and pay non-licensed taxi drivers? I don't think I'd be comfortable relying on uber in that situation.

Y'all are spending time in the wrong parts of Utah. Hit me up next time you're passing through. I'll show you the non-crappy areas. Also, I find it very bizarre how much Utah comes up as a point of conversation in these message boards. Have we moved on from the land of kudzu to the land of of arches and slot canyons?

My apologies, I must have slept through ornithology class. Hopefully that wasn't a prereq to post here.

I have a friend of a friend that was arrested and jailed with a big enough bond that he couldn't post bail. Ultimately was found innocent. He was a foster parent, and a few of his former foster kids thought they could blackmail him for money by making up abuse allegations. Eventually the truth came out, but not before his life was ruined and he spent time behind bars for a crime he didn't commit. Not saying Rosenthal is innocent. Not saying he's guilty, either. But I try to not pass judgement based on an arrest warrant, especially when that warrant is potentially based on verbal rather than physical evidence.

Never in any sport ever. I don't follow college soccer, but even if I did I wouldn't cheer for Creighton. I actually had a buddy that played keeper for them. He was really good (conference defensive POTY, third-team All-American, drafted by the LA Galaxy during the David Beckham years, and played professionally in Europe) and I still didn't cheer for the Bluejays!

That is some juicy information! Gotta think we have an inside track if it is a kid that is both considering reclassifying and we feel confident in landing. That makes me hypothesize that it's someone with a family connect -- either Simeon or Clemmons. Yalden seems like he likes Nebraska but also likes a lot of other schools. And his family/local connection is pretty thin.

At the very least he shouldn't be turned off by Nebraska if/when he decides to transfer. Anything is better than New Jersey.

Every post in the soccer thread is must-read analysis and/or a hot take. Join us!

That was actually one of the games I thought about the longest. Most of the pedigree SEC teams have rivalries with the other big name teams, and they can't all play each other every year (unless you make pods that are super uneven from a competitive balance perspective). I de-prioritized the Tennessee/Florida game because: 1. From an outsider's perspective, it doesn't feel like a big-time rivalry anymore like it did in the Fulmer/Spurrier days. UF going 15-1 in the series since 2005 is probably the biggest reason, but I think the fact that the game is always played early in the year and doesn't have a snazzy nickname like most other SEC rivalries also plays a part. 2. The Tennessee fans I know seem to care more about Georgia and Bama than they do about Florida. And yes, they cared about Bama even before Saban turned Bama into the evil empire that everyone hates. Bama fans I know hate Tennessee second most, behind only Auburn. 3. The SEC has de-prioritized this game before. It has only been played annually since the early 90s.

I'm starting to feel the same way. My biggest dose of pessimism is knowing that a lot of teams are returning more than their normal level of productivity, thanks to the NCAA granting that free year of eligibility to anyone wanting to return to their team. But other than that, we have checked every box possible this offseason. Returned key production, developed guys that needed to take a step forward, added high level freshman talent, filled our biggest hole with a proven Power 5 transfer, and filled out our depth chart with high ceiling transfers with four years of eligibility. If this was any normal year, I would be thinking a top 4-5 finish in conference.

One of my local beat writers is making a pitch for BYU to get a Big 12 invite. Actually kind of makes sense, if the Big 12 sticks together and adds a couple teams. https://www.ksl.com/article/50212969/is-byu-a-big-12-expansion-candidate-in-tv-cougars-have-surpassed-left-behind-8

...this would be how I set up the conference football structure. My priorities would be maintaining rivalries, competitive balance, and ensuring each team plays each other on a rotating basis no less than once every four years. Structure Four quadrants. Let’s call them NW, NE, SW, and SE for geographic simplicity. NE/SE combine to be the Eastern Division while NW/SW combine to be the Western Division. NW: Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas SW: LSU, TAMU, Ole Miss, Miss St NE: Kentucky, Tennessee, Bama, Auburn SE: Vandy, UGA, Florida, South Carolina Scheduling -Play each team within your quad every year. That’s three games. -Play one protected “rivalry” game annually with a team that is in your division, but not your quad. -Play one game against a different team in your division but not in your quad, on a rotating three-year schedule. -Play one game against a team in each of the opposite division’s quads, on a rotating four-year schedule. Now we're up to seven games total. -8th conference game is TBD, and will be scheduled based on the quad standings at the end of the seven regular conference games. 1st place in NW plays 1st place in SW; 2nd in NW plays 2nd in SW; etc. This will act as a de facto divisional championship game, with the winner of the 1st place NW/SW and NE/SE games advancing to the Conference Championship. Protected rivalry games Texas/TAMU Arkansas/LSU Ole Miss/Texas Miss St/Mizzou Vandy/Tenn Florida/Bama UGA/Auburn Kentucky/USC OK, tell me what I got wrong.

Come again? The whole sports world has been reporting OU/UT to the SEC. What sources are you following that say Big Ten is grabbing them? Also, if true it would actually be a good thing. Nebraska vs Oklahoma should never have stopped being a thing, and Texas won't have the same political pull in a conference with tOSU and Michigan.

I watched the SKC match in it entirety, so I only really got to see about 10 minutes of the first half of USMNT v Jamaica and then most of the second half. Impressions: SKC played exceptionally well. To go into that environment and not only score three times, but to control possession and place pressure on Seattle as much as they did was something special. Seattle was clearly missing Frei between the pipes but that shouldn't take too much away from SKC's dominant performance. USMNT was, well, at least we won. Backline + Acosta defended well. Forwards weren't creating tons of great looks, but they also weren't being provided service in dangerous areas. This felt like a match where our midfield was severely outplayed, at least in the portion of the match that I saw.