If Pryor entered the supplemental draft would you pick him.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Some interesting info:

Behind the Blue Disk - FBS Athletic Revenues and Expenses - NCAA.org

NCAA report: Economy cuts into college athletics - ESPN

The 12 Most Valuable Teams in NCAA Football | Business Pundit

Solidifies what I was saying about big sport athletics paying for all the small ones. THIS is why you can't pay athletes beyond their scholarships and room and board.

"Football and men's basketball are the only two sports you have any chance of making money," he said. "If you start splitting that up between 30 or 40 sports, you start losing money."

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

College Football program. Shut down. That's a good one. I lol'ed.

Hofstra Football Canceled: Program Shut Down, Report Says

Keep LOL'ing bro.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

^^ In response to that crazy rant above, I have to say your stance is a bit misguided. Athletes are under a set of rules to prevent advantages from bigger schools with more resources. It has to be in place to keep the advantages equal. However, it's apparent that the bigger schools aren't abiding by these rules as we've seen time and time again the programs being brought down.

What they should do is this. Coaches that get caught breaking (or ignoring) NCAA infractions, they should be fired, fined, and banned from coaching (beginning at a 5 year ban to indefinitely). Period. Tressel should never be allowed to coach again in the NCAA. It's not his first offense, and most likely won't be his last. (and many other coaches fall under this as well)

Right now, a coach can have all sorts of NCAA infractions against them, jet to another school and nothing happens.(in any sport) How in the hell does John Calapari still have a job in the NCAA system? It's mind boggling.


Paying athletes? Nope. SHouldn't happen. They get paid for room and board, education, and the cost of books. I dare you add that all up and see how much it equates to. Also, people don't realize that the money that college football (or basketball) brings in supports all the other athletic programs at a school.

EAST CAROLINA OFFICIAL ATHLETIC SITE - Facilities

Look at that sweet new Olympic Complex going up at ECU. Who do think pays for that new soccer, softball, track field? Football does, that's who. Who do you think pays for the girls basketball team to travel from place to place? Football and men's basketball, that's who.

It sounds like you're one of the infractions people for the NCAA. His players were trading in rings that they earned for tats. Big deal! They all should've been suspended for a couple of games. They earned the rings and they should be allowed to do what ever the hell they want with them. A ring for some tats? We're not talking about thousands of dollars here. lol. Tressel turned his head an lied about it. Again, he should've taken his 2-3 game suspension and be done with it.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

You must not be familiar with the burden of proof concept. When you can't back up a claim, I can just tell you that you can't back up your claim, and then you have to go out and prove it.

Point of the Game: The Dominance and the Myth of College Football II

?? You haven't backed up yours either.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I am surprised that the University of Central Florida is one of the two or three programs in the nation that can sustain an athletics program based strictly off the revenues of its football program. I would not have expected that. I know, for a fact, they are pretty much alone in terms of colleges of their size.

How do you know this for a fact? You have the numbers? For somebody claiming to know something as fact, you have shown very little evidence. I bet you quite a few universities can as well. West Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, USF, and I can roll on down the list of BCS conferences and list their teams as well.

The football data highlights the nasty secret of football and college sport: the world segregates by the vast majority of haves-sort; some sort of haves; and a super elite of absurd abundance, rather like the modern U.S. wealth distribution system. A staggering 94 percent of college football programs lose money; their revenue streams do not cover the costs of the program. This refutes the often cited claim that football pays for the rest of the athletic program. In a very very very few programs, maybe 10, football may generate enough surplus to help support other college sports, but in the vast majority of programs football programs vacuum up 85 percent of the expenditures and do not cover their costs.

Where did this bullshit come from? Are they talking about all three divisions? (I,II,III??) Can you get something more credible?


Here you go.

How Profitable is Football in Conference USA? «

Take in consideration, this is the lowly Conference USA.

[GTripp0012]

Terrelle Pryor, interestingly, profiles quite well as a supplemental draft prospect. Really well, actually. Good height, strong build, a nice pedigree, being highly recruited out of PA. And really, he's started a ton of games (34) at Ohio State, was underrated with his accuracy this year, moves the chains, and doesn't have an obscenely high sack rate or anything (a fairly standard 6%).

The concerns about Pryor, I believe, aren't a mirage. He's a 21 year old kid. Does he truly "get it?" Does he understand what he needs to work on to improve and succeed at the next level? Well, he's young and likely still has people telling him what he needs to work on rather than understanding it for himself.

My concerns about Pryor are similar in nature to the concerns many had about Blaine Gabbert coming out. The differences of course could be as simple as Pryor's off-field activity being scrutinized in Columbus where Gabbert went largely unscrutinized in Columbia.

If you need your QB comparisons made along racial lines, Pryor is very similar to Josh Freeman in college. Freeman never ran as much, so he had less perceived translation to the NFL, but Freeman also had less necessity to run in the Big 12. Pryor often ran out of necessity, and while you could argue that it could have hindered his development as a passer, when you look at what you have in Pryor, you see a guy who looks a lot like the incredibly flawed first rounders of past seasons.

He succeeds in a good situation in the NFL, and fails in a poor situation. Which makes him...a pretty standard first rounder (but not top five pick) from the past four NFL drafts. Pryor's questions are, at least, more related to his off-field conduct than his on field performance, which gets graded often as only a negative.

If he enters the supplemental draft, I think a fourth round pick would be value well spent on Pryor as a QB.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

?? You haven't backed up yours either.




How do you know this for a fact? You have the numbers? For somebody claiming to know something as fact, you have shown very little evidence. I bet you quite a few universities can as well. West Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, USF, and I can roll on down the list of BCS conferences and list their teams as well.




Where did this bullshit come from? Are they talking about all three divisions? (I,II,III??) Can you get something more credible?


Here you go.

How Profitable is Football in Conference USA? «

Take in consideration, this is the lowly Conference USA.

My case is rested. I will read whatever links you post that suggest the contrary, but this topic was opened, you were called out, and was quickly and emphatically shut. You were wrong, and you have nowhere to go except backwards.

Points that are based solely on ones own "expertise" typically end up making the point maker look as foolish as you.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

My case is rested. I will read whatever links you post that suggest the contrary, but this topic was opened, you were called out, and was quickly and emphatically shut. You were wrong, and you have nowhere to go except backwards.

Points that are based solely on ones own "expertise" typically end up making the point maker look as foolish as you.

Are you high?...lol What the hell are you even talking about? What was I called out on that I was quicky and emphatically shut? (or wrong for that matter?)

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Are you high?...lol What the hell are you even talking about? What was I called out on that I was quicky and emphatically shut? (or wrong for that matter?)

The fact that the vast majority of football programs don't turn profits is easily provable, and was proven with the technical expertise of a Google search. This falls within the domain of common knowledge, since the 10 sources that come up first all say basically the same thing. It's not worth debating anyone who doesn't immediately accept fact as fact.

percentage of college football programs that lose money - Google Search

There are, of course, programs that do turn actual, real profits without having to fudge what is being included in revenues and expenses to do so. I was not surprised to see Texas, Notre Dame, and Penn State amongst the schools making a fortune off their program. I was surprised to see UCF there as well. That's all I'm saying.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

There are, of course, programs that do turn actual, real profits without having to fudge what is being included in revenues and expenses to do so. I was not surprised to see Texas, Notre Dame, and Penn State amongst the schools making a fortune off their program. I was surprised to see UCF there as well. That's all I'm saying.

From the link:
How Much of a Drain are “Other Sports” «

"As you can see, UCF turns a profit when it comes to strictly viewing team revenues and expenses thanks to profits from football and men’s basketball. This is before you add in their $17.5 million in student fees. However, it’s also before you add in costs like coaches salaries ($5.9m), recruiting ($559k), gameday operating expenses ($3.6m) and student aid ($5.7m). With those expenses included, it takes student fees, alumni contributions and other revenue from sources like licensing and advertising to allow UCF to turn an overall profit in the athletic department."

We would need to know the expenses specifically for football for coaches salaries, recruiting, gameday expenses, and student aid to determine if the football program at UCF is turning a stand-alone profit.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The fact that the vast majority of football programs don't turn profits is easily provable, and was proven with the technical expertise of a Google search. This falls within the domain of common knowledge, since the 10 sources that come up first all say basically the same thing. It's not worth debating anyone who doesn't immediately accept fact as fact.

percentage of college football programs that lose money - Google Search

I'm so confused and I think you are to. You've manage to take this quote of mine.

Also, people don't realize that the money that college football (or basketball) brings in supports all the other athletic programs at a school.

....and turn it into I said all football programs made a profit and sponsored their other programs in it and this applied across the board to Division I,II, and III.

Wow. Not sure who is worse at reading. You or SBXVII.


THEN you go on to say the following before doing any research.

I would be willing to bet that at a fine institution such as East Carolina, football, at very best, is self sustaining from a financial perspective.....so it certainly wouldn't shock me if their football program (along with the rest of C-USA) are running in the red.

As noted, our AD made 1.6 million last year in profit.
How Profitable is Football in Conference USA? «

So about that "bet"?


I'm not sure why you are claiming something that I have not said nor implied. Hell, the "google link" you put up there doesn't even show crap about what you are speaking about. A blog from some no name guy who doesn't even reference his stats? Are you serious?

If you are going to argue a point, at least make sure you are arguing the same point. It's obvious you aren't.


On to your point. How many of these schools in any of these conferences do you think lose money in college football? The below are the conferences that are in the division I of NCAA which we are talking about.

Division I (NCAA) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I would argue that Ohio St. is nowhere near a "Pro Style" offense.

While Pryor was padding his numbers against; Marshall, Ohio, E. Michigan and the middle/bottom of the Big Ten how did he do against competitive teams:
Wisconsin: 14-28 156yds 50% Comp 0 TD 1 INT
Miami: 12-27 233yds 44% Comp 1 TD 0 INT
Iowa: 18-33 195yds 54.5% Comp 1 TD 2 INT
Arkansas: He played well 14-25 221yds 56% Comp 2 TD 0 INT

Keep in mind he won't be able to put up the run numbers he did in the NCAA at the NFL level. Pryor is not, and I don't expect will develop into, a proficient passer at the NFL level. Would I risk a sixth rounder on him as an "athlete", yes. Projected as a full-time QB, no way.

I thought I was in the wrong thread for a second there with all the NCAA football programs revenue talk, what happened? Anyway back to Mr.Pryor.

You can disagree that Ohio State was a pro-style offense, but that means venturing into the definition of a pro-style offense, we can just agree to disagree on that point then, although I think its fairly obvious that Ohio State is a pro-style offense especially considering the number of college teams running the spread or spread variants.

About the numbers, you can take most any QB and pick their worst games and do the same thing you did above.

Did Pryor have some bad games? Sure. But, most college prospects are gonna have some bad games.

You make no mention of his physical skillset and that is a major factor in how QB prospects are judged.

I'm not into the prediction business so I'm not gonna guess wether Pryor develops or not.
But, Pryor does have an NFL skillset, and if you could get him for a 6th round pick , which isn't considered much different then an UDFA then that would be great value in my book.

The question the OP didn't ask is: would Pryor be a fit for Kyle's offense?
The answer to that question imo is no, now in Mike's offense?

[NLC1054]

The difference between "Kyle's offense" and "Mike's offense" is negligible at best and non-existent at worst, especially since "Kubiak's offense", which is what Kyle learned, is the same damned offense as the one he ran with Mike for years in Denver.

I think we as fans get caught up too often and just trying to get a quarterback, instead of trying to find the right quarterback.

If Mike doesn't feel like he can't be the guy, or can't turn into the guy very shortly, then no, he's not worth drafting or "taking a flyer on". If all he's ever going to be is a back-up quarterback...back-up quarterbacks are easy to find.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

The difference between "Kyle's offense" and "Mike's offense" is negligible at best and non-existent at worst, especially since "Kubiak's offense", which is what Kyle learned, is the same damned offense as the one he ran with Mike for years in Denver.

True they're technically the same offense its also the same offense that Heimdinger ran with the Titans.

Holmgren, McCarthy, Reid and Shanahan all come from the same offense (Bill Walsh) and were all Bill Walsh assistants.

But, you wouldn't say the all run the same offense.

Heimdinger was a longtime OC and assistant HC for Mike Shanahan so technically he and Kyle's run the same offense but would you say that Kyle and Heimdinger offense are the same? I wouldn't.

The playcalling and gameplanning focus within a particular offense is what gives coaches their identity.

Having been a huge fan of Mike Shanahan's Denver WCO, I can say that Kyle's offense is very different.

Here are some easy examples of the difference between Mike and Kyle:

o Pass-run ratio:
Mike is a career 50/50; Kyle career is 60/40.

o Mike is playaction(boot/swap) focus with movement passes (sprint out, dash out, sprint out).
Mike's offense results in simplified QB reads often time half field Hi-Lo reads.

Kyle is more straight drop back rhythm passing and is very dependent upon a QB decision making and reading out a full field progression.

The playcalling focus within the offense requires Mike and Kyle QBs to have different skillsets.
One of the benefits of Kyle's style is its less dependent upon a QB with elite physical skills.

Originally Posted by NLC1054

If Mike doesn't feel like he can't be the guy, or can't turn into the guy very shortly, then no, he's not worth drafting or "taking a flyer on". If all he's ever going to be is a back-up quarterback...back-up quarterbacks are easy to find.

Also, typically speaking QB 'gurus' often take a 'flyer' on at least 1 QB every draft wether they have a starter or not.

And there is value in finding a back-up, and no they're not easy to find.
There is value in drafting a QB late and developing them into a viable QB for the drafting team or as trade bait.

[schndr_tdd]

if i was going to the supplemental id go after the OL from ohio state

[irish]

Big-time college sports is a cess pool. No way will Pryor play QB as a pro maybe someone will take a flyer on him in hope that he will play TE or WR but the Skins dont need to take on a project like this.