Jump to content
News Ticker
  • Connecticut 31-20 North Dakota State
  • East Carolina 52-23 Memphis
  • Kansas 48-41 Oklahoma
  • Southern Miss 24-9 Marshall
  • UTEP 30-22 Middle Tennessee
  • Wyoming 35-31 New Mexico
  • BYU 45-14 Oregon State
  • Georgia State 41-22 UMass
  • Nebraska 23-17 Miami (FL)
  • Western Kentucky 34-21 Charlotte
  • Old Dominion 33-27 Florida Atlantic
  • Louisiana Tech 27-26 UAB
  • Buffalo 51-0 Bowling Green
  • Northern Illinois 41-34 Ball State
  • Texas A&M 31-20 Arkansas
  • Boston College 40-16 Virginia Tech
  • USF 32-26 Tulsa
  • Toledo 55-30 Central Michigan
  • Pittsburgh 62-7 NC State
  • Duke 49-27 Georgia Tech
  • Notre Dame 27-13 Northwestern
  • West Virginia 55-11 Iowa State
  • Louisville 41-20 Wake Forest
  • Kentucky 34-31 Tennessee
  • SMU 41-16 Tulane
  • Texas Tech 23-7 Kansas State
  • TCU 30-27 Texas
  • Illinois 34-0 Indiana
  • Boise State 23-13 Utah State
  • Oregon 14-9 Utah
  • Stanford 24-23 Washington
  • Nevada 38-6 UNLV
  • USC 55-23 UCLA
  • Penn State 22-19 Michigan
  • Michigan State 28-24 Ohio State
  • Iowa 34-31 Purdue
  • Alabama 13-10 Vanderbilt
  • LSU 31-30 Auburn
  • Arizona 27-14 Hawaii
  • UCF 44-25 Temple
  • California 17-12 Colorado

pumph

MWC
  • Content count

    817
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

pumph last won the day on July 23

pumph had the most liked content!

About pumph

  • Rank
    Legendary Coach

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

CFBHC

  • Favorite Team
    Clemson

Recent Profile Visitors

1,194 profile views
  1. Just for clarification: "and will come out of the head coaches salary" Does this mean that the HC salary is reduced by 500k when we look at the rule that the HC must make more than 1 of the coordinators? Or does this mean that the HC's salary vs the coordinators is unchanged, but the coach just has 500k less to spend because that goes to the assistant? Example: Head Coach was signed for 3.1/yr, OC at 4.0, DC at 2.9 Team had an assistant. With the HC actually only earning 2.6M, with 500k going to the assistant, is this team not in compliance because the HC is making less than both coordinators? Or is the 3.1 the number that matters, and this team is in compliance? Because no one knew the assistants would need to be paid, and every team went right up to the cap to maximize their HC pay for future benefits, this rule change would cause several teams to break the "HC can't make less than both coordinators" rule. Just wanted to make sure which way the rule was being interpreted before I hire my HC and possibly an assistant. Thanks
  2. Chargers do not currently have any rostered players drafted in the 1st Round of the 2018 Draft. Being such, we are not picking up anyone's option.
  3. Regional Rivalries

    @gigemags11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86_P3Bzfh9g
  4. Regional Rivalries

    I wasn't saying in-state, i was saying rivalry. Hawaii could have a rival. Possibly even SDSU. But also teams that don't have rivals wouldn't gain but also wouldn't be hurt if the system is implemented the right way. Figuring how to do that is the hard part.
  5. Regional Rivalries

    Ok, in order to implement what I'm proposing would require a change to the basic system we have now, which I really like. But if we want more realism, and if we want rivalries to mean something, let's think outside the box... This also gets set out without knowing the behind-the-curtain process for how recruits are generated and all the work it entails. This surely requires more work. But this would be something that the conference commissioners could jump in with or a team/board/panel or dedicated players could assist with unless there would be some kind of randomizer that could simulate the process and simplify the work needed. Here goes: Every recruit, when generated (ok, maybe not every, but a majority of them) would be leaning towards one group (1-3) of teams. Some recruits would want winners, some would want close to home, some may want perceived early playing time by playing for a worse team, some would want someone for a seemingly random reason (like legacy in Juco). Those teams start with a certain number of recruiting points already set for the preferred teams and the preferred teams would be visible on the interface before recruiting starts. (numbers of points can be debated - nothing unreachable for those not on the list, but varying degrees of favoritism for these players towards schools - let's say for argument's sake, between 5-20). When the recruits are generated, the winners/losers of the rivalry games the previous season will have been accounted for, with more players favoring the winners over the losers and/or having larger leads over them. Of course, not all players would be affected, just a certain percentage that already would have been considering the involved teams. Rivalries would be pre-established, historical rivalries. Just about team has at least one, even if not a huge nationally-known one. If a team doesn't have a rival, they just wouldn't be affected by it. I guess we could establish new ones, if teams play each other repeatedly and establish a track record of competitive games, but that would be up for debate. Under this plan, two teams involved in a rivalry do not have the results of their rivalry directly affect other teams trying to recruit the same players. But we also move to a more realistic model of national recruiting - while having basically the same system we have in place now - just a head start for certain teams on a percentage of players. The schools that the recruits favor might be preset by the commissioners/board/panel, but they would not have access to the exact number of points each team would start with (it would be randomized so they wouldn't have an advantage by knowing the information) Flame away....
  6. Regional Rivalries

    When we all have something like 15-25 points per week (some outliers, sure) giving anyone even 1 extra point per week is significant and perhaps even makes things unbalanced. When the difference between a bowl win and a bowl loss can be just 1 point per week, giving someone even 1 point per week for winning against their rival school (who might be a doormat to begin with) seems like too much. If we changed the scaling a little bit, points bonus might fit a little better than it currently would. My plan might have been too complicated, but we really need a man with a vision. Where is Canes when you need him? There has to be a way to count rivalry wins more, without allowing you to benefit out of state/area with that win. Cal shouldn't be able to beat Stanford as their rival, then use the bonus points on a recruit in Colorado. That needs to be a key element of any implementation. But also, Cal beating Stanford shouldn't mean that Colorado is penalized when recruiting the same kid in the state of California as Cal. Cal's win over Stanford shouldn't penalize Colorado, or Fresno State for that matter. The only team hurt by it should be Stanford. And not all rivalries involve borders. Army/Navy, ND/USC and many others. Someone figure that out.
  7. Regional Rivalries

    Love the idea, on a limited basis. Here's my proposal: The winner of games between two teams recruiting the same player gets a +20% bonus to points spent on that player the week of the game and a +10% bonus the following week. The bonus only applies to recruits that the two teams both have spent points on (including visits and scholarships) The other side of that could be instead of rewarding the winner - penalizing the loser. The reason this might be better is that what if a 3rd (or more) teams are also on the same recruit? They shouldn't be penalized just because State beats Tech and gets bonus points from it. Now - how Inspiral could code this into the interface I'm sure becomes a much bigger issue, but on the surface something like this would be really cool - yet not too advantageous for teams.
  8. [2020] Early Declarations

    The last quote, I'm pretty sure, came from the Wyoming kid.
  9. 2021 Practice Squad Changes

    That was what I was hoping for - THANKS. Reordering cap sheets by salary really would be a mess to find players.
  10. 2021 Practice Squad Changes

    anyone with the excel formula to easily transition our cap sheets, please pass this along. Thanks.
  11. Super Bowl VII

    Pack must have somehow avoided taking a 21-3 lead (smartly, I might add)
  12. [2020] Top Recruits and Their Commitments

    Graham Spear was robbed. He told me that he will only use this as motivation to fuel the fire that burns inside of him.
  13. As the release of the JUCO list approaches, I just want to remind all Florida and Carolina recruits who fear the devastation of Irma, and those recovering from the effects of Harvey last week, that San Diego has the best weather in all of North America.

    1. Darman

      Darman

      Until you have the hellish environments of Fire and the Earth literally tearing itself apart, and opening the gates of hell. 

  14. I'm actually against the naming of bowls. If we had to move our franchise from San Diego to Los Angeles because that was what the IRL team did, than why should we have a DescretoBurrito Mile High Bowl? Either we want realism or we don't. This in-between thing makes less sense. Speaking of which, we're going to beat the Las Vegas Raiders in Week 1 next season. Upset alert.
  15. The biggest benefit irl teams get from bowl games is 15 extra practices, which really benefits the underclassmen. Maybe some kind of progression bonuses for a % of Freshmen and Sophomores that are on bowl teams and at least #2 or 3 on their depth chart? Scheme change reduced or eliminated for teams' first bowl game that year. Playoff teams would not get the same reduced scheme change for subsequent games, since they have less time to prepare for them.
×