Jump to content

Big Ten Football


BeerBQ

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

Well I disagree it's not politics but I guess that's just me.  Bill Clinton wasn't exactly the gold standard in behavior toward the opposite sex either. 

I like a lot of your stuff...I really do, but it feels like we've strayed over a line here.

Why are you bringing up other politicians? Did Knight campaign for any of them? If he didn’t, they are irrelevant. The question is will he still support OSU, and his history shows that he will. The fact that the example used is a politician is incidental. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

Why are you bringing up other politicians? Did Knight campaign for any of them? If he didn’t, they are irrelevant. The question is will he still support OSU, and his history shows that he will. The fact that the example used is a politician is incidental. 

Does this connection get made if he wasn't our president and knowing your political leaning?  I avoid posting political facts due to my perceived bent here, that, and my understanding (or misunderstanding) of the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PoHoosier said:

Does this connection get made if he wasn't our president and knowing your political leaning?  I avoid posting political facts due to my perceived bent here, that, and my understanding (or misunderstanding) of the rules.

So if he ran for president and Knight endorsed him and he lost? Yes, it would. Again, this has nothing to do with politics. And has to do with the fact that Bob Knight supported someone that treats women like crap, and that shows that he will still support OSU. For the sake of argument, let’s say Obama, Hillary and Bill are all horrible toward women. Guess how that impacts this discussion? Zero because Knight never endorsed them. I can’t make it any more clear that Trump being a politician is incidental. This has nothing to do with his policies. But his character isn’t up for debate, it’s well documented. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

So if he ran for president and Knight endorsed him and he lost? Yes, it would. Again, this has nothing to do with politics. And has to do with the fact that Bob Knight supported someone that treats women like crap, and that shows that he will still support OSU. For the sake of argument, let’s say Obama, Hillary and Bill are all horrible toward women. Guess how that impacts this discussion? Zero because Knight never endorsed them. I can’t make it any more clear that Trump being a politician is incidental. This has nothing to do with his policies. But his character isn’t up for debate, it’s well documented. 

Knight doesn't impact this discussion either, you made it political.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, rico said:

Knight doesn't impact this discussion either, you made it political.

Trump had a long history of womanizing and misogyny before he entered politics.  DJ was directly responding to a question by another poster regarding Knight's stance on the domestic violence situation at Ohio State.  Knight's support of Trump, whose track record in this area speaks for itself in a completely apolitical manner, speaks directly to what we might expect out of Knight regarding his feelings toward Ohio State; namely that he would practice zero tolerance when it came to those over whom he had power but would look the other way when it came to those who are "on his team" so to speak.  

I understand, appreciate, and agree with the desire to keep political discussions off this board, particularly in our current political climate, but I think we should also be allowed to cite people and their character in an apolitical manner (regardless of that person's participation in a political organization or government) if it is germane to the discussion rather than pretending those issues don't have relevance to or impact on the topic at hand. 

That's a fine line, I know, but I think this board can handle it better than most.  For me, the reference of Trump as a misogynist has nothing to do with politics, and it directly relates to the question of Knight's feelings toward Ohio State and its domestic violence situation as he was/is a vocal backer of Trump despite those character traits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, rogue3542 said:

Trump had a long history of womanizing and misogyny before he entered politics.  DJ was directly responding to a question by another poster regarding Knight's stance on the domestic violence situation at Ohio State.  Knight's support of Trump, whose track record in this area speaks for itself in a completely apolitical manner, speaks directly to what we might expect out of Knight regarding his feelings toward Ohio State; namely that he would practice zero tolerance when it came to those over whom he had power but would look the other way when it came to those who are "on his team" so to speak.  

I understand, appreciate, and agree with the desire to keep political discussions off this board, particularly in our current political climate, but I think we should also be allowed to cite people and their character in an apolitical manner (regardless of that person's participation in a political organization or government) if it is germane to the discussion rather than pretending those issues don't have relevance to or impact on the topic at hand. 

That's a fine line, I know, but I think this board can handle it better than most.  For me, the reference of Trump as a misogynist has nothing to do with politics, and it directly relates to the question of Knight's feelings toward Ohio State and its domestic violence situation as he was/is a vocal backer of Trump despite those character traits.

Jesus Freakin' Christ.  I really thought this was a thread for discussing B1G football.  Just shaking my head in disgust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rico said:

Jesus Freakin' Christ.  I really thought this was a thread for discussing B1G football.  Just shaking my head in disgust.

Here you go, Rico. This post was about big ten football and sparked the conversation. And I’m 100% sure I can find a post from you elsewhere supporting topics going off-topic, so feel free to save it just because you don’t like it in this instance. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my 2 cents !!  Earlier in this post it was brought out that on a pee yew web site some turkey posted IU Sucks ! LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO ! Those pee yew smellermakers are 0 AND 3 and have one of the WORST DEFENSIVE TEAMS IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY !!  While our INDIANA HOOSIERS ARE SITTING 3 and 0  !! Who REALLY SUCKS ????????????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hoosiertildeath said:

my 2 cents !!  Earlier in this post it was brought out that on a pee yew web site some turkey posted IU Sucks ! LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO ! Those pee yew smellermakers are 0 AND 3 and have one of the WORST DEFENSIVE TEAMS IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY !!  While our INDIANA HOOSIERS ARE SITTING 3 and 0  !! Who REALLY SUCKS ????????????????

Turdue, that's who!!!

Based on what I witnessed last night they certainly have to be one of the worst defensive teams in D1. I don't remember Brohm having a poor reputation as a defensive coach...what gives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.donbest.com/ncaaf/injuries/

Here is an injury report that came up when I searched in on google.

This might help paint a more accurate picture of the extent of the early impact injuries or relative lack of may or may not be making at various programs  on the current W/L records to greater degrees for which teams. I like to cross reference material like this with weekly depth charts, and vids, stats etc sometimes. 

Plus this is decent basis for proportional comparison of upper to lower body injuries for a given program, since it provides that general info for individuals. Wiscy is pretty hit right now. The leg injuries stand out, don't they, People are scratching their heads on a few boards about the BYU loss. Just an example. Helpful insight though for me personally at times even though I don't bet formally.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

Here you go, Rico. This post was about big ten football and sparked the conversation. And I’m 100% sure I can find a post from you elsewhere supporting topics going off-topic, so feel free to save it just because you don’t like it in this instance. 

 

My apologies to board for asking a question about a Big Ten football school in the Big Ten football thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friday Sept.21,2018 : Penn State [3 & 0] 37 Illinois [2 & 1] 20 . 9 PM FS1

 Saturday September 22 ,2018:

Minnesota [3 & 0 ] 29 Maryland 2  & 1 ] 27. Noon =BTN

Michigan [2 & 1 ] 40 Nebraska [ 0 & 2 ]  20 . Noon -FS1

Boston College [3 & 0 ] 41 pee yew smellermakers[0 & 3 ]  32. Noon-ESPN-2  Hopefully, the smellermakers will be o & 4 after this game !

Buffalo [3 & 0 ] 39 Rutgers [1 & 2 ] 27 . Noon-BTN

Ohio State [3 & 0 ] 47 Tulane [1 & 2 ] 24 .3:30 PM -BTN

IU [ 3 & 0 ] 35 Michigan State [1 & 1 ] 23 . &;30 PM-BTN.

Iowa [ 3 & 0 ] 25 Wisconsin [2 & 1 ] 19 . 8:30 PM -FOX

Disclaimer: Any money won or lost are the sole responsibility of the person placing  the bet ,VBG !!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B1G Sagarin Ratings after week 3:

https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

2 - Ohio State

4 - Penn State

12 - Michigan

13 - Iowa

14 - Wisconsin

22 - Michigan State

40 - Minnesota

55 - Indiana

60- Northwestern

64 - Maryland

66 - Nebraska

79 - Purdue

91 - Illinois

129 - Rutgers

 

B1G S&P+ Ratings after week 3:

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa

2 - Ohio State

8 - Penn State

10 - Michigan

13 - Wisconsin

20 - Michigan State

23 - Indiana

34 - Iowa

46 - Nebraska

48 - Minnesota

54 - Purdue

66 - Northwestern

81 - Maryland

99 - Illinois

114 - Rutgers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...