He meant "Splainin' posters".
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
We now take you to Ann Arbor Michigan
- Thread starter skibum
- Start date
I'm not surprised
First, I suspect he had a budget far beyond the average fan's
Second, other than OSU and Michigan, none of the B1G teams sell out regularly, and OSU has a stadium with over 100k in a small metro area -- quick look shows their next home game has tickets starting at $82 + fees on Stubhub.
Last edited:
Didn’t he also have tickets to the playoff games?
Don't know. But again, if he has the budget to spend $500-$1000 per, he's going to find tickets.
If this is true, it's at least SOME evidence for the "not that big of a deal" crowd that Michigan benefitted tremendously from this.
Only one team (Illinois) kept it within 1 score of Michigan last season prior to the TCU game, and that included a very good Ohio State team.
The most points they gave up all season was 27 to Maryland.
They were favored by more than a touchdown vs. TCU, with the line opening at -7.5 and moving to -8.0. The O/U was 57, so the perception was that they were going to limit TCU to like 24 points.
And then they lose by giving up 51 points to an offense that did absolutely NOTHING against Georgia? That loss seemed weird at the time, but not that weird now.
Honestly, Sanders' comments yesterday on the subject was all the evidence I needed
I'm Coach Prime's biggest fan, but I didn't forgive Blackburn for his hit on Hunter; so sometimes I depart from his statements/beliefs.
And honestly, are you trying to suggest that if one team knows what's coming and the other doesn't, that execution is the only variable that matters? I find Prime's argument a little silly, honestly. Since he's brilliant, I'm going to guess there is a good reason he said it, but logic doesn't appear to be it.
Yeah I guess it’s OK to cheat because “the other team still has to stop it”. I see people are still missing the entire point, including Prime, who I imagine was mostly just avoiding getting involved in a controversial way.
No, I'm suggesting that Sanders' is being honest that "in football it's not that big a deal" and that his knowledge of the subject far exceeds mine.
So forgetting what Coach Prime said, and turning to your rational brain:
If only one team knows (with a high level of confidence) what play the other team is about to run, does it give the team that knows an increased chance of executing against it (whether on offense or defense)?
What if Prime decided to just insert Tyler Brown into the starting lineup this week wearing Reggie Young’s number? It’s really not that big of a deal and UCLA still has to execute, so who cares?
We might as well just not follow any rules put in place because apparently all that matters in this sport is whether some people think it’s a big deal or not.
We might as well just not follow any rules put in place because apparently all that matters in this sport is whether some people think it’s a big deal or not.
yes, of course it gives an advantage.
but that's not what's being discussed. what's being discussed is how impactful it is, not whether there's any impact.
I don't doubt that, if the allegations are true, it gave UM an advantage.
Did it give them a bigger advantage than...
- a recruiting violation that lands a 5* star running back?
- PED use by players?
- falsifying documents to get players grants they wouldn't otherwise qualify for?
- keeping players eligible with passing grades in classes that they never attended?
Thanks for explaining your view on this. All of those things you listed provide a big advantage. I suspect that knowing signals does too.
And the more I think about it, I agree with Coach Prime. Even if you know the play you still have to stop it (which goes to the talent stuff that you bulletized that is an important factor in the game). So he's being honest, but his statement feels very much incomplete.
I very much view football as a game of deception. It's a lot like the military in that way. Show one thing, but do another. Pretend to be predictable while setting up something unpredictable.
Wherever the relative talent lies on the field, I suspect that knowing signals/plays would have an enormous impact on the outcome of the game(s).
I felt like this was only me.
I’m not bowling with that ****er
(but I fully understand the the bigger “social commentary”)
How can this even be possible. If you know a team is going to run right, but you don’t need to tip it, (and you’re Michigan) how is that not immensely beneficial.
that would've been a great follow up question for the reporter to ask HCDS; it's beyond my knowledge of the sport
Arguing about how much of an impact it makes misses the whole point. I don't believe it makes a huge impact but Harbaugh would not have done it if it didn't give him some advantage so yes he is cheating to win more games.
A lot of college football games aren't that competitive. Without cheating Michigan is going to be heavily favored for all but a few of the games on their schedule.
Let's say, just for arguments sake, that stealing the signs got them 2 more wins than they would have had. This isn't something like cheating to bring a 3 win team to 9 wins.
What does that 2 wins mean? It means that Michigan went to the playoff instead of a team that deserved to be there and didn't violate the rules. If you had a 5 win team that won 2 more games by breaking the rules thus winning 7 it would mean that team goes to a bowl instead of team that didn't cheat.
In both cases the team that won 2 more games by violating the rule is more likely to get extra TV exposure, get a boost in recruiting, and otherwise gain benefits that the schools that didn't cheat didn't gain.
So is it as big a deal as the old SWC schools giving cars to 5* recruits and houses to their families? No.
Does it matter to the integrity of the game and fairness to other schools, absolutely.
In this context it can't be ignored. Significant punishment has to be given out.
This is the whole point. If they didn't gain an unfair advantage they wouldn't have done it. How big that advantage is isn't the point. Bottom line is that because of the advantage one team gets an unfair edge and the benefits of that edge.
If the response is that it's no big deal, let it pass then at what point do you start enforcing the rules to provide an even playing field?
And it does matter that this isn't the first time that Harbaugh has tried to gain an unfair advantage by going outside the rules.
Between the absolute flip of Michigan's performance against the spread & in rivalry games during Harbaugh's tenure and the fact that it appears that TCU was the one team they didn't scout & have the signal stealing book on last year... there's a compelling case that Michigan is a fraud that has only become a contender because it has known what plays their opponents called.
The more I learn, the more I am developing outrage. Orchestrated cheating which has completely undermined the integrity and fairness of the sport.
The more I learn, the more I am developing outrage. Orchestrated cheating which has completely undermined the integrity and fairness of the sport.
And it will completely taint whatever they do the rest of the season, even now that signs are for sure being changed and they are assuredly done cheating. It’s similar to players gambling on their own games and officials getting caught throwing games. Maybe not quite as “bad”, but it calls the integrity of the games into question and doesn’t allow everybody to full believe that what they are watching is legitimate. It’s has to be snuffed out and dealt with harshly.
Why would a team not change signs every game. Seems kind of dumb. Leach used to signal in plays like baseball, just a number of fingers, but he probably changed every week what each number was. Laziness by teams relying on a decades old rule that was put in place to even the cost structure.
Because it becomes an entire language. NCAA rules put a maximum number of hours a team can practice and a maximum number of hours that players can be in meetings each week during the season. In these hours they have to put in the game plan, work on formations and player groupings, and cover and practice the calls for that week.
They shouldn't have to spend a bunch of time changing their signs just because another school wants to cheat.
Granted it does make some sense to change the signs enough on a frequent basis to keep opponents from picking them up from year to year or even in game but the bottom line is that there isn't time to waste changing the full language every week and they shouldn't have to.
Central Michigan is going to get hammered.
I don't think it's laziness. You hear all the time about coordinators having to simplify their schemes for college teams so that the players can read and react without thinking too much; it slows them down. If you try to get 11 guys to remember that a signal means a different thing every week, you're going to get some slow players (or guys who run the complete wrong play).