Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

College Games


Shocker
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, 4Corners said:

I know Nebraska is considered a blue blood and they have been irrelevant for three decades. 

Older people thinking about years past  consider Nebraska a blue blood.   They aren’t IMO in college football anymore.  

that’s how I look at it at least 

How many kids think Nebraska is a blueblood over a Clemson?  Unless you live in Nebraska you probably haven’t even seen Nebraska play if you are a kid lol

Kids know Dabo, Watson, Trevor and see Clemson as a permanent fixture in college football.  

I think NIL and the upcoming conference changes will create a new mix of them.  No one cares about 30 years ago 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I'm not opposed to trading out of that spot and amassing stupid draft capital unless you're certain Anderson is a sure fire HOFer.

Yeah I'm seeing a lot of guys I'd like to take shots at in mid 1st-late 2nd than any sure fire game changer in the top ten. Problem is most other teams are gonna think the same and not trade up. I think the 2021 draft with Lance and Fields is probably turning teams off from getting too excited about prospects. There was some weird trades last year but I don't remember anything like selling the farm to get into the top 10. The Philly/Saints trade was the weirdest and that was mid 1st round

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CRA said:

Older people thinking about years past  consider Nebraska a blue blood.   They aren’t IMO in college football anymore.  

that’s how I look at it at least 

I'm 40 and I still barely remember Nebraska being relevant.

If you're a HS recruit outside of the corn belt you'd probably be legit shocked to find out that Nebraska was once decent at football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CRA said:

Older people thinking about years past  consider Nebraska a blue blood.   They aren’t IMO in college football anymore.  

that’s how I look at it at least 

It’s insane how bad Nebraska is now. People under the age of 30 have no clue how dominant they were at one point. Tommy Frazier is one of the first athletes I cam really remember as a kid being completely starstruck by. Lawrence Phillips as well. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 4Corners said:

It’s insane how bad Nebraska is now. People under the age of 30 have no clue how dominant they were at one point. Tommy Frazier is one of the first athletes I cam really remember as a kid being completely starstruck by. Lawrence Phillips as well. 

That Nebraska team that dismantled Florida was maybe the best ever.  Miami had a few you could argue but who knows

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 4Corners said:

It’s insane how bad Nebraska is now. People under the age of 30 have no clue how dominant they were at one point. Tommy Frazier is one of the first athletes I cam really remember as a kid being completely starstruck by. Lawrence Phillips as well. 

Nebraska Oklahoma was a great game in the Osborne Switzer era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...