Big Ten Commish on the move?

Its official. Bears announce the hiring of Warren.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

NigelUno wrote:I wonder if Warde Manuel will emerge as a candidate.  

Based on stuff I'm seeing on Twitter there's going to be campaign by u of m fans to get rid of him by Saturday. Something about Warde wanting Jim gone but Jim wanting to stay. Who really knows with Jim. I hope Warde has a parachute ready. Not really though, he can go fuck himself.

I'm guessing Jim has had an extension/raise on his desk for awhile. I'm also guessing it has a much larger buy out (which Jim doesn't want).

Warde would look foolish if he gave Jim a big raise with a small buy out, and Jim bailed to go back to the NFL.

That's the impasse (in my opinion). Unfortunately for Warde, a winning football coach has more power than an AD.

NigelUno wrote:I wonder if Warde Manuel will emerge as a candidate.

Maybe he could be both the UofM AD and the B1G commish

Trapper Gus wrote:

NigelUno wrote:I wonder if Warde Manuel will emerge as a candidate.

Maybe he could be both the UofM AD and the B1G commish

What’s the difference?

DWags wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Maybe he could be both the UofM AD and the B1G commish

What’s the difference?

The difference is that when the commish has a player on MSU's FB team, it's a conflict of interest. When the commish is the u of m AD, it's not a conflict of interest.

[tw]1645950989214576651[/tw]

When you can't lure the ACC guy, this is what you get.

[tw]1646106818685329408[/tw]

Well at least I don't have high hopes so it will be hard to be disappointed.

Helped create the BCS? The BCS was like a terrible joke. Was the person who invented the Flowbe hair vacuum unavailable?

Turtleneck wrote:Helped create the BCS? The BCS was like a terrible joke. Was the person who invented the Flowbe hair vacuum unavailable?

I hate the BCS, however, it made money for someone, so if money is the only goal ...

Turtleneck wrote:Helped create the BCS? The BCS was like a terrible joke. Was the person who invented the Flowbe hair vacuum unavailable?

Depends on how you define joke. It made a shitload of money...

Nordic wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Helped create the BCS? The BCS was like a terrible joke. Was the person who invented the Flowbe hair vacuum unavailable?

Depends on how you define joke. It made a shitload of money...

I just thought it was a horrible way to decide the champion. It kinda sorta kept MSU from playing for a title in 2013/14, and they absolutely deserved a shot. MSU was just as good as FSU that year.

Turtleneck wrote:

Nordic wrote:

Depends on how you define joke. It made a shitload of money...

I just thought it was a horrible way to decide the champion. It kinda sorta kept MSU from playing for a title in 2013/14, and they absolutely deserved a shot. MSU was just as good as FSU that year.

Wasn't that due to the B1G rules?

Turtleneck wrote:

Nordic wrote:

Depends on how you define joke. It made a shitload of money...

I just thought it was a horrible way to decide the champion. It kinda sorta kept MSU from playing for a title in 2013/14, and they absolutely deserved a shot. MSU was just as good as FSU that year.

It was a 2 team "playoff". FSU was undefeated, and Auburn was ranked ahead of us all year and knocked off #1 Alabama.

MSU didn't deserve a shot in a 2 team playoff. 4? Sure. And we would have most likely played Auburn, and then the winner of Bama/FSU.

NigelUno wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I just thought it was a horrible way to decide the champion. It kinda sorta kept MSU from playing for a title in 2013/14, and they absolutely deserved a shot. MSU was just as good as FSU that year.

It was a 2 team "playoff". FSU was undefeated, and Auburn was ranked ahead of us all year and knocked off #1 Alabama.

MSU didn't deserve a shot in a 2 team playoff. 4? Sure. And we would have most likely played Auburn, and then the winner of Bama/FSU.

You don’t deserve a chance.

NigelUno wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I just thought it was a horrible way to decide the champion. It kinda sorta kept MSU from playing for a title in 2013/14, and they absolutely deserved a shot. MSU was just as good as FSU that year.

It was a 2 team "playoff".  FSU was undefeated, and Auburn was ranked ahead of us all year and knocked off #1 Alabama.  

MSU didn't deserve a shot in a 2 team playoff.  4?  Sure.  And we would have most likely played Auburn, and then the winner of Bama/FSU.  

Opps, yes, this is the MSU loss to ND on questioned PI calls for only loss year.

I'm thinking of the year someone else went to the Rose Bowl instead of MSU because of the B1G using National ranking as a tie breaker.

You critics need to know one thing about about the new Commissioner: Out of all the candidates given consideration in this search, Tony Petitti was one of them. And that’s all you need to know.

Turtleneck wrote:

Nordic wrote:

Depends on how you define joke. It made a shitload of money...

I just thought it was a horrible way to decide the champion. It kinda sorta kept MSU from playing for a title in 2013/14, and they absolutely deserved a shot. MSU was just as good as FSU that year.

It was better than what they had before and started the playoff evolution. Oh, and it made a shitload of money.

tGreenWay wrote:You critics need to know one thing about about the new Commissioner:  Out of all the candidates given consideration in this search, Tony Petitti was one of them. And that’s all you need to know.  

 I was seriously just about to type 'who's that?'. Then I goggled it.

Nordic wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I just thought it was a horrible way to decide the champion. It kinda sorta kept MSU from playing for a title in 2013/14, and they absolutely deserved a shot. MSU was just as good as FSU that year.

It was better than what they had before and started the playoff evolution. Oh, and it made a shitload of money.

Disagree. The old bowl system was chaotic but it was better. The BCS was the final step in making CFB a cartel that caters to only a few. It t was fueled by greed more than trying to establish a decent post season.

Turtleneck wrote:

Nordic wrote:

It was better than what they had before and started the playoff evolution. Oh, and it made a shitload of money.

Disagree. The old bowl system was chaotic but it was better. The BCS was the final step in making CFB a cartel that caters to only a few. It t was fueled by greed more than trying to establish a decent post season.

So you would prefer the old Bowl system to the eventual playoff system that we are going to have? Because that is what you are essentially saying. The BCS was the first step the 4-team playoff and eventually the new playoff we are going to have. If you want to go to your deathbed with that take, go for it. But it's absurd.

Oh and the BCS made a lot of money (and apparently he had other TV ventures). Which I'm guessing why he was hired.

Nordic wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Disagree. The old bowl system was chaotic but it was better. The BCS was the final step in making CFB a cartel that caters to only a few. It t was fueled by greed more than trying to establish a decent post season.

So you would prefer the old Bowl system to the eventual playoff system that we are going to have? Because that is what you are essentially saying. The BCS was the first step the 4-team playoff and eventually the new playoff we are going to have. If you want to go to your deathbed with that take, go for it. But it's absurd.

Oh and the BCS made a lot of money (and apparently other TV ventures). Which I'm guessing why he was hired.

Sure, college athletics is all about the money, which is why MSU no longer has a swim team.

Turtleneck wrote:

Nordic wrote:

It was better than what they had before and started the playoff evolution. Oh, and it made a shitload of money.

Disagree. The old bowl system was chaotic but it was better. The BCS was the final step in making CFB a cartel that caters to only a few. It t was fueled by greed more than trying to establish a decent post season.

Just like basketball?

Actually it will be 100% opposite, if 12 teams make it every year I'd guess it will spread out the talent (if your a 5 star you HAVE to go to 1 of 4 or 5 schools now if you want to play in the big games.) Plus with the cash, it will disburse the talent even more.

Look at hoop....

Turtleneck wrote:

Nordic wrote:

It was better than what they had before and started the playoff evolution. Oh, and it made a shitload of money.

Disagree. The old bowl system was chaotic but it was better. The BCS was the final step in making CFB a cartel that caters to only a few. It t was fueled by greed more than trying to establish a decent post season.

Turtleneck is a cranky old man who hates change.

But isn’t it the perfect pic for today’s modern NCAA? I mean it’s all about TV revenue and market share. If there are legal disputes or rule controversies that happen in games, he will have attorneys that are well educated in that area run that part of the ship

The new boss is the one that goes after the gold star. TV revenue market share

I am no engineer, but if I had to take a guess, the big three auto makers are hiring way less mechanical engineers, and a crap ton more software engineers . I’m assuming vice President spots are probably going to people with software engineering backgrounds now

The world is changing

Nordic wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Disagree. The old bowl system was chaotic but it was better. The BCS was the final step in making CFB a cartel that caters to only a few. It t was fueled by greed more than trying to establish a decent post season.

So you would prefer the old Bowl system to the eventual playoff system that we are going to have? Because that is what you are essentially saying. The BCS was the first step the 4-team playoff and eventually the new playoff we are going to have. If you want to go to your deathbed with that take, go for it. But it's absurd.

Oh and the BCS made a lot of money (and apparently he had other TV ventures). Which I'm guessing why he was hired.

No, I preferred the old system to the BCS. The BCS is not the system we have now. I would rather have had teams go to whatever bowl and let the AP and Coach’s Poll work it out.

The BCS definitely favored some conferences over others in its selection of championship game participants. Often the selection process made no sense,  or at least didn’t seem consistent year to year. Teams unexplainably jumped other teams, one year there were five undefeated teams so it got really messy, and I think the state of Alabama was home to the national champion four, maybe five, consecutive years.

The BCS was so bad even the POTUS publicly complained about it and the DOJ was close to initiating an investigation for anti-trust violations. For all the money it made, it was not well distributed. That was laid out pretty well with financial records in the book Death to the BCS.

It might have been the precursor the current system, but they only moved to a four team playoff after considerable complaints and controversies. CFB leadership and the old guard did not want to change. That is why is lasted for over 15 years. It took a lot of pressure to get to something as simple as a four team playoff.

Also, I could not care less about money. Money is what has ruined the sport.

tGreenWay wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Disagree. The old bowl system was chaotic but it was better. The BCS was the final step in making CFB a cartel that caters to only a few. It t was fueled by greed more than trying to establish a decent post season.

Turtleneck is a cranky old man who hates change.

He's a blue. I bet he's wearing his 1997 Michigan co-National Champs tee right now.

Nordic wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:



Turtleneck is a cranky old man who hates change.

He's a blue. I bet he's wearing his 1997 Michigan co-National Champs tee right now.

Not to mention he admitted he hates money. Our resident blue is also a commie. He’s horrible.

Nordic wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:



Turtleneck is a cranky old man who hates change.

He's a blue. I bet he's wearing his 1997 Michigan co-National Champs tee right now.

One of the reasons I hate Iowa football is because they had a 21-7 halftime lead on UM that year…and blew it. If they don’t screw it up that co-title never happens. I guess the BCS would have given us UM vs. Nebraska, so that is a positive since I think Nebraska would have buried UM. Although I think that was a Bowl Alliance Series year, which was some other lame attempt to avoid a playoff system.

Turtleneck wrote:

Nordic wrote:

He's a blue. I bet he's wearing his 1997 Michigan co-National Champs tee right now.

One of the reasons I hate Iowa football is because they had a 21-7 halftime lead on UM that year…and blew it. If they don’t screw it up that co-title never happens. I guess the BCS would have given us UM vs. Nebraska, so that is a positive since I think Nebraska would have buried UM. Although I think that was a Bowl Alliance Series year, which was some other lame attempt to avoid a playoff system.

You’re trying way too hard, blue.

tGreenWay wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

One of the reasons I hate Iowa football is because they had a 21-7 halftime lead on UM that year…and blew it. If they don’t screw it up that co-title never happens. I guess the BCS would have given us UM vs. Nebraska, so that is a positive since I think Nebraska would have buried UM. Although I think that was a Bowl Alliance Series year, which was some other lame attempt to avoid a playoff system.

You’re trying way too hard, blue.

The last time you were able to try something hard was what, 1967?

Turtleneck wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:



You’re trying way too hard, blue.

The last time you were able to try something hard was what, 1967?

Nice deflection, blue.