PDA

View Full Version : PAC 12 Football



Sea Ray
01-03-2012, 02:30 PM
Although there's not much talk about it, I'm appalled at how the defenses of the PAC 12 have performed in this Bowl season. Washington, Oregon and Stanford have shown us the worst D in recent Bowl memory. Should this affect how we eveluate players like Andrew Luck? I think Andrew Luck looks NFL ready but the expectations of him are going to be tremendous. Anything short of Peyton Manning and he'll be a disappointment. He has an excellent O-line and running game. The receivers he throws to are largely wide, wide open RBs, slot receivers and TEs. In the NFL he'll have to throw to tightly covered receivers and narrow lanes of vision.

I will say that the offense he's running looks very much like the Indy Colts'. The Colts will likely shop this pick but in the end, I think they'll keep it and draft him. I still want to hear him declare for the draft though.

dabvu2498
01-03-2012, 03:28 PM
I still want to hear him declare for the draft though.

Why? He's a senior.

To your main point, there's been quite a lot of discussion that he may have gotten his uniform quite a bit dirtier had he been facing more stout defenses, but I think he's still a good enough and quick enough decision maker to avoid getting sacked much. But it will be interesting to see how he handles more pressure.

BuckeyeRed27
01-03-2012, 03:38 PM
Why? He's a senior.

To your main point, there's been quite a lot of discussion that he may have gotten his uniform quite a bit dirtier had he been facing more stout defenses, but I think he's still a good enough and quick enough decision maker to avoid getting sacked much. But it will be interesting to see how he handles more pressure.

Luck isn't a senior. He could come back for another year, although there is almost no chance he actually does.

I see your point, but Luck is going to be awesome. I honestly think he would have been one of the best 5 QBs in the league this year. He certainly benefited from less than stellar defenses, but I also think that the many rule changes in football have made the offenses look better than they really are.

RBA
01-03-2012, 03:51 PM
We will see, Luck will be in the NFL soon enough. He's no Tebow, he actually has talent.

OnBaseMachine
01-03-2012, 04:03 PM
Luck put up those great numbers despite not having much talent at WR. Imagine if he had a Marqise Lee, Robert Woods, or Kendall Wright to throw to.

dougdirt
01-03-2012, 04:10 PM
Luck put up those great numbers despite not having much talent at WR. Imagine if he had a Marqise Lee, Robert Woods, or Kendall Wright to throw to.

This. Luck has not had anything close to even a good receiver to throw to yet.

dabvu2498
01-03-2012, 04:14 PM
Luck isn't a senior.


Another reason why ESPN stinks:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/380470/andrew-luck

IslandRed
01-03-2012, 04:19 PM
Mostly, people need to remember that Luck never became hyped because of universe-leading stats or off-the-charts measurables. NFL scouts started drooling over him last year because of how he played the game and how well it translated to The NFL Way.

As for the bowls -- yeah, Oregon and Stanford were getting lit up, but Wisconsin and Oklahoma State lit up everyone in their own leagues, too. It was definitely offense vs. offense in those games.

reds1869
01-03-2012, 04:27 PM
Another reason why ESPN stinks:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/380470/andrew-luck

ESPN is guilty of that all the time. During the Xavier-Gonzaga game the announcers kept referring to Mark Lyons as a senior when in fact he is a junior. They did the same thing during the XU/Vandy game and pretty much every other ESPN broadcast featuring Xavier this year. It can't be that hard to do research on a roster, can it?

BuckeyeRed27
01-03-2012, 04:34 PM
Another reason why ESPN stinks:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/380470/andrew-luck

I guess technically he is a senior, but he redshirted I believe.

Sea Ray
01-03-2012, 04:44 PM
Another reason why ESPN stinks:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/380470/andrew-luck

Well ESPN knew last year that this was his Junior year:


Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck, the odds-on favorite to be the No. 1 pick in this spring's NFL draft, announced Thursday he will stay in school and play his redshirt junior season.



http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5995754

This makes my point. The whole world is so convinced that he's coming out, they've forgotten that he's not a senior. This forum alone shows us that a Vanderbilt grad and ESPN don't even know that he has a year of eligibility left. He could leverage that with Indy if he doesn't want to sit after being drafted. No one's talking about this

Sea Ray
01-03-2012, 04:46 PM
I guess technically he is a senior, but he redshirted I believe.

Technically he's a junior because he has one yr of eligibilty remaining

Roy Tucker
01-03-2012, 04:53 PM
Mostly, people need to remember that Luck never became hyped because of universe-leading stats or off-the-charts measurables. NFL scouts started drooling over him last year because of how he played the game and how well it translated to The NFL Way.



I think its Luck's intelligence (both football and IQ) that has the scouts drooling. He has the potential to hyper-manage the game the way Peyton Manning or Drew Brees do. He seems to have the arm to make all the throws and the mobility. Plus he has a 5 GHz processor brain that makes a decision thisfast. He made a remarkable dump-off throw last night where some OSU defender was into his midsection and Luck saw a receiver on the sidelines at the very last nanosecond and made a great throw. It only gained a few yards, but I went "wow".

But he still has to do it at the NFL level. In the NFL, receivers are hardly ever "open". There is a pre-designed 1-2 second window (about 2 ft. square) that opens up downfield and the QB has to have faith in his receivers that the guy will be there at that appointed time. When they use that on-field camera and a QB throws the ball, I think "how did he do that?". Plus he has to do it with LBs and DLs that are out to kill him and genius eye-in-the-sky coaches making it their mission to confuse and camoflauge everything the defense does.

dabvu2498
01-03-2012, 04:54 PM
Well ESPN knew last year that this was his Junior year:



This makes my point. The whole world is so convinced that he's coming out, they've forgotten that he's not a senior. This forum alone shows us that a Vanderbilt grad and ESPN don't even know that he has a year of eligibility left. He could leverage that with Indy if he doesn't want to sit after being drafted. No one's talking about this

Heck, there was even an article published on ESPN.com today saying he should come back next year. :doh:

http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/7419841/andrew-luck-return-stanford-one-more-season-knows-good-him

FWIW, Stanford's official website lists him as a SR also.

http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/luck_andrew00.html

Sea Ray
01-03-2012, 05:01 PM
Heck, there was even an article published on ESPN.com today saying he should come back next year. :doh:

http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/7419841/andrew-luck-return-stanford-one-more-season-knows-good-him

FWIW, Stanford's official website lists him as a SR also.

http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/luck_andrew00.html

So much for the Stanford education...

That same page lists his 2010 season being his soph yr. :confused:

Hoosier Red
01-03-2012, 05:14 PM
ESPN is guilty of that all the time. During the Xavier-Gonzaga game the announcers kept referring to Mark Lyons as a senior when in fact he is a junior. They did the same thing during the XU/Vandy game and pretty much every other ESPN broadcast featuring Xavier this year. It can't be that hard to do research on a roster, can it?

Depending on the reasoning, he may technically be a senior. For instance, medical redshirts are considered to be part of their class until after they've exhausted their eligibility. They then petition for an additional year. It's almost always granted, but until they do that, they're technically Seniors.

Sea Ray
01-03-2012, 06:06 PM
Depending on the reasoning, he may technically be a senior. For instance, medical redshirts are considered to be part of their class until after they've exhausted their eligibility. They then petition for an additional year. It's almost always granted, but until they do that, they're technically Seniors.

It's my understanding that medical redshirts refer to wiping out a player's season of eligibility after they've played in a few games (but under 30%). Then they have to apply. Since Luck didn't play at all his first year, no petition will be necessary in order for him to be eligible to come back for his senior season.

I believe that all NCAA athletes have 5 yrs to complete four years of eligibilty. Thus Luck is a senior academically (but who cares about that if you're a football fan) but a junior athletically

Hoosier Red
01-03-2012, 08:38 PM
That's good information Sea Ray. You are certainly more versed than I.

One other thing that could play into the classification, all of which comes from the school I'm sure, is how the school handles it.

I know Notre Dame for example rarely if ever recognizes redshirts until they in fact apply for and receive their fifth year from the university. I think it's the general policy that the rule should be a "student-athlete" should graduate in 4 years.

Stanford and Xavier may have similar policies.(I don't have any insight, simply recognizing some situations which are different than the standard state school.)

Sea Ray
01-04-2012, 09:00 AM
That's good information Sea Ray. You are certainly more versed than I.

One other thing that could play into the classification, all of which comes from the school I'm sure, is how the school handles it.

I know Notre Dame for example rarely if ever recognizes redshirts until they in fact apply for and receive their fifth year from the university. I think it's the general policy that the rule should be a "student-athlete" should graduate in 4 years.

Stanford and Xavier may have similar policies.(I don't have any insight, simply recognizing some situations which are different than the standard state school.)

To the best of my knowledge there is nothing to apply for in Luck's case. NCAA rules allow you 5 yrs to complete 4 yrs of athletics. If you sit out your freshman year you are allowed to play four more without any school or governing body signing off on it so I disagree with your statement that he must apply for a 5th yr.

Sea Ray
01-04-2012, 09:18 AM
This comes right off the NCAA website:


The term "redshirt" is used to describe a student-athlete who does not participate in competition in a sport for an entire academic year. If you do not compete in a sport the entire academic year, you have not used a season of competition. For example, if you are a qualifier, and you attend a four-year college your freshman year, and you practice but do not compete against outside competition, you would still have the next four years to play four seasons of competition.



http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/Legislation+and+Governance/Eligibility+and+Recruiting/Faqs/eligibility_seasons.html

I have no idea where folks are getting the idea that a player like Luck has to apply to come back to Stanford next year...:confused:

IslandRed
01-04-2012, 10:11 AM
To the best of my knowledge there is nothing to apply for in Luck's case. NCAA rules allow you 5 yrs to complete 4 yrs of athletics. If you sit out your freshman year you are allowed to play four more without any school or governing body signing off on it so I disagree with your statement that he must apply for a 5th yr.

You're mixing up NCAA rules with what Hoosier Red said about Notre Dame policy (and then wondering aloud if Stanford had the same policy -- which, based on a roster glance, it does).

If you are at Notre Dame and finish your fourth year having only played three, you do not need to petition the NCAA to play the fifth year. You do, however, need special approval from Notre Dame to come back and play it at Notre Dame.

It's semantics to an extent because scholarships always have to be renewed on an annual basis. But it does affect how the school refers to players' classes. At a normal school, a player who plays five years has this typical sequence:

Freshman, Redshirt Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior

That's just a custom, though, it's not an NCAA-mandated thing. At Stanford, the progression goes:

Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, Redshirt Senior

At Notre Dame, I think they have a different name for the fifth-year guys but it's based on the same principle -- "seniors" are fourth-year players, and it may or may not be their final year of eligibility.

So, by Stanford's figuring, Andrew Luck was a senior this year. At most schools, he would be called a junior.

Sea Ray
01-04-2012, 10:47 AM
You're mixing up NCAA rules with what Hoosier Red said about Notre Dame policy (and then wondering aloud if Stanford had the same policy -- which, based on a roster glance, it does).

If you are at Notre Dame and finish your fourth year having only played three, you do not need to petition the NCAA to play the fifth year. You do, however, need special approval from Notre Dame to come back and play it at Notre Dame.

It's semantics to an extent because scholarships always have to be renewed on an annual basis. But it does affect how the school refers to players' classes. At a normal school, a player who plays five years has this typical sequence:

Freshman, Redshirt Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior

That's just a custom, though, it's not an NCAA-mandated thing. At Stanford, the progression goes:

Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, Redshirt Senior

At Notre Dame, I think they have a different name for the fifth-year guys but it's based on the same principle -- "seniors" are fourth-year players, and it may or may not be their final year of eligibility.

So, by Stanford's figuring, Andrew Luck was a senior this year. At most schools, he would be called a junior.

If Luck needs special approval to come back to Stanford, this is the first I've heard of it.

BuckeyeRed27
01-04-2012, 10:53 AM
If Luck needs special approval to come back to Stanford, this is the first I've heard of it.

I believe he has or is going to graduate so he would need to apply for some type of graduate school. I'm sure this wouldn't be a problem if he wanted to come back, but he isn't so it doesn't really matter.

IslandRed
01-04-2012, 11:03 AM
Again, it's mostly semantics. At ND a player is expected to graduate in four years and it is considered an exception when he is allowed to come back for year number five even if he still has eligibility. I don't know what Stanford's specific policy is, although they do have fifth-year seniors, so we can presume Luck could have been one had he so chosen. What we do know is that Stanford appears to use the same policy as Notre Dame on how they refer to their athletes' class. And that's what this whole debate is about, whether Luck is a senior or a junior, and the answer depends on who you're asking.

Sea Ray
01-04-2012, 11:06 AM
I believe he has or is going to graduate so he would need to apply for some type of graduate school. I'm sure this wouldn't be a problem if he wanted to come back, but he isn't so it doesn't really matter.

If he graduates then of course he'd have to take some graduate courses but this notion that Stanford operates like Notre Dame is unfounded:


Stanford Athletics Parents Guide to NCAA Rules

Student-athletes are permitted to compete in four
seasons of competition in any one sport within five
calendar years; this is sometimes referred to as the
“five-year clock.” This clock starts when a studentathlete
initially registers full-time and attends his/her
first day of classes for a term other than summer school
at a collegiate institution.
A student-athlete uses a season of competition if he/she
participates in any competition, regardless of the length
of time, during a season. For example, if an athlete
plays in one minute of one game, he/she has used
one season of competition. One exception to this rule
is during the athlete’s initial year of enrollment, when
a freshman may participate in preseason exhibition
contests and practice scrimmages without triggering a
season of competition (if applicable to his/her particular
sport). A student-athlete who does not compete at all
during a season is commonly referred to as a “redshirt.”





http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/stan/genrel/auto_pdf/2011-12/misc_non_event/Parents-Guide-to-NCAA-Rules.pdf

How do you know he's not going to come back? Has he said that or is that merely speculation on your part?

We really need to be careful about being loose with the facts here. That's what gives the internet a bad name. Clearly Stanford, unlike ND does allow for athletes to redshirt contrary to the impression given by some around here and I see no factual basis to say as of today that "he isn't coming back".

RBA
01-04-2012, 11:06 AM
Feb 3, 2012: Andrew Luck, "Coach, I want to comeback next year"

Coach, "You passed the deadline to apply for Stanford, sorry, cannot help you. Maybe you can try Ohio State?"

IslandRed
01-04-2012, 11:47 AM
If he graduates then of course he'd have to take some graduate courses but this notion that Stanford operates like Notre Dame is unfounded:

Stanford operates like Notre Dame in the one specific aspect that is relevant to the subject at hand: Why the university itself called Andrew Luck a senior instead of a redshirt junior.

Everything else with respect to comparing the two schools should be considered an attempt to explain why they do it that way, and not a declaration that they do everything exactly alike. To the extent it might have muddied the water, my apologies.

Sea Ray
01-04-2012, 12:10 PM
Stanford operates like Notre Dame in the one specific aspect that is relevant to the subject at hand: Why the university itself called Andrew Luck a senior instead of a redshirt junior.

Everything else with respect to comparing the two schools should be considered an attempt to explain why they do it that way, and not a declaration that they do everything exactly alike. To the extent it might have muddied the water, my apologies.

Stanford as an institution has not been consistent in how they refer to Luck. The same website that lists him as a senior in his bio also has the following:

--Honored as the Academic All-America® Team Member of the Year for Division I football, Luck is a junior who is an Architectural Design major with a 3.48 G.P.A.



--2010 (SOPHOMORE): Was named the Pac-10's Offensive Player of the Year...was also a finalist for the Heisman Trophy,

BuckeyeRed27
01-04-2012, 12:29 PM
Stanford as an institution has not been consistent in how they refer to Luck. The same website that lists him as a senior in his bio also has the following:

--Honored as the Academic All-America® Team Member of the Year for Division I football, Luck is a junior who is an Architectural Design major with a 3.48 G.P.A.



--2010 (SOPHOMORE): Was named the Pac-10's Offensive Player of the Year...was also a finalist for the Heisman Trophy,

It is just a difference between athletic eligibility and his actual standing as a student. Why are we still talking about this?

Sea Ray
01-04-2012, 02:45 PM
It is just a difference between athletic eligibility and his actual standing as a student. Why are we still talking about this?

Well we've talked about it up until this point to clear up a muddied situation. When we started some thought that he was indeed a senior athletically; others thought he'd have to petition to get an extra year; there was even some silly talk of medical redshirting that obviously doesn't apply here. Finally there was talk that Stanford has the same no redshirt policy as Notre Dame and Duke. To think we cleared all that up in 30 posts is not bad IMO.

As to your point, as fans of NCAA football, I doubt many of us care about his standing as a student. It's all about football.