Cynical

Michigan is pretty damn serious about trying to get Harbaugh. Latest contract offer was rumored to be $48M / 6 Years. To put that into perspective, that's more than Saban is making at Bama. .

Let's deal with Luck at Indy first. Having the first overall draft pick is completely different from recruiting. It does not matter if 32 teams wanted Luck, only 1 team at time got to choose if they wanted to pick him or not. In college recruiting, ALL teams have access to a player they covet. The player chooses which program/team to play for. Which brings us back to the first part. Harbaugh amassed a 29-6 record at San Diego State. He became the HC at Stanford starting the 2007 season. Luck accepted a scholarship offer from Stanford in 2008. Who recruited Luck? That would be Harbaugh. So tell me again how Harbaugh did NOT build Stanford up? Once again, when Saban came to UA, recruits that had no interest in playing for UA suddenly became interested in playing for UA because of the HC they hired. And yes, I am talking about some recruits that had soft commitments outside of the SEC. Do not underestimate what a HC with a great resume can bring to a college program, especially one like Michigan. All those problems you think are there, will suddenly disappear.

All this statement shows is you and the other poster who stated it have no clue about Saban. Keep thinking the Lombardi is the ultimate goal for somebody like Saban. It means nothing to him. It's like the crystal football at the collegiate level. He's earned 4 of them. To him, they're trinkets. Nothing more. Winning the championship is not what gives him satisfaction. That's just a possible result of what does give him satisfaction. Until you can wrap your head around that, it will never make any sense to you.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply Michigan hasn't been recruiting well. I was trying to call BS on Mr. WEO's allegation Michigan cannot recruit a QB. Bottom line, it will not matter what kind of "recruiting problems" Michigan supposedly has, a HC like Harbaugh will have no problem overcoming the alleged shortcomings.

You're right. If I was a HC, I would choose a big time college program over an NFL team in a heart beat. Horse poop. When Saban took over the Bama job, recruits who had no interest in going UA suddenly changed their stance. As one recruit was quoted: "Saban changes everything." Harbaugh built Stanford into a power. Harbaugh took the 49ers to the SB. If Harbaugh took the Michigan job, watch how fast he gets a QB.

And I see what you are trying to do. You did not like or agree with the outcome. From your point of view, it doesn't make sense. So, create a conspiracy to explain it. And this is where you conspiracy theory falls apart ... Somebody somewhere knows whats going on. You implied it in your own conspiracy. Here's your post from earlier in the thread: 1. "Maybe WI threw the game so a Big Ten team could crack into the playoff". This benefits Wisconsin how? Who on the team is involved? Coaches, players, etc ...? Games just don't "throw" themselves. 2. "Maybe WI will get some kickback". Where's the money coming from? Who's manipulating this? Who's receiving the money? 3. "NCAA is friggan rigged, big money everywhere". You do realize the NCAA has very little control over FBS (f/k/a Div 1-A) post season football. The only thing the NCAA can do is bar a player or team from playing in the post season. Even then, they have to have a reason, even it's complete BS. The NCAA gains nothing from OSU playing in the post season.

I have my own issues, especially in regards to the corrupt POS known as the NCAA. But that's a rant for another thread. Well, you didn't answer this one. Again, who are the members of this conspiracy? You have implied the Selection Committee, the NCAA, the Big 10 conference, Ohio State University, and the University of Wisconsin. Anybody else? I'm just trying to figure out how big this thing is. Another non-answer. For each member of the conspiracy, what are their roles? You have implied Wisconsin purposely tanked a game. Were the players aware of this? Who's running the show and calling the shots? So, every member of the conspiracy gets money? Or just some of them? If they didn't get any money, what other benefit did they receive?

Now? When was the last time the Big12 was ever a bigger money maker than the Big10? All of this because OSU got in over TCU or Baylor? Why don't you come out and explain it. Who's a part of this conspiracy? What roles did they play? How does each conspiracy member benefit?

What? How could you forget about Levi Brown in 2010? He was the Bills first pick .... ... in the 7th round. But, hey, he was drafted, right? That's more than Tuel can say. But yeah, even if you do factor in Brown, that's still a WTF kind of moment.

My mistake. In his fourth year, 2004, yes he was. In 2001, 2002, and 2003, he was not. In fact, he was benched in 2003 because of poor play. In 2004, the Chargers drafted/acquired a new QB because Brees was beginning to look like a bust to them.

1. Drew Brees was drafted in the second round. 2. Brees was so spectacular his first 3 years, the Chargers drafted another QB looking to replace him. Does that mean every QB is a Drew Brees? No, but every QB is not an Andrew Luck either. The reality is a QB takes time to develop. How many Drew Brees will a team throw away in it's search for their Andrew Luck?

If Terry had to buy a minor league team to buy to stash the goalies, what minor league team can he buy/create to stash his QB's?

Well, in his defense, he can throw a mean interception just as good, or better, than other HOF QBs.

He needs to sit in a lead walled room while wearing a tin foil hat.

Agreed! First thing I noticed.

Read the rule. It was clearly a forward pass attempt. The rule does account for a forward pass landing behind the player. It's still an incomplete pass.

No, I do not always defend the ref's. But if you want to make that assumption based on two calls we disagree on, that's more of a reflection of you and your perceptions. I do not feel compelled to come on here and B word about every call or non-call I disagree with. Especially when the Bills win. Speaking of the Brady call, here's what I said, in case you have forgotten: "At the time, I hated it. However, since then, I have come to realize, it was the correct call. I can hate the result of it, but the call was correct." I still hate the result. But is that result of the officiating or of the rule itself? For me, it's the way the rule was written. How anybody could determine that bringing a ball back to the body is still considered a part of the forward pass makes no sense. So, yes. It was a correct call of a badly written rule. Whatever. If being an apologist means I do not want the officials to look at a players reaction after a play as determination of what happened, or spend 10 minutes reviewing a play because they are trying to interpret the orientation of the ball and what that means, or analyzing the probabilities of a dropped elbow, then, yes, I am an apologist. It's a game, not quantum physics.

Nah, not really. I've read rules and seen the play. I think the call was correct. But the topic does seem it's very important to those that feel the need to validate the "We was robbed", the "NFL officials suck", and the "NFL is fixed" mentality that has permeated the board this year.

And I don't think it ever will. To many variables to take into account, and that could possibly end up with a rule book looking like a version of War & Peace. Not to mention the amount of time needed to review a play as the officials would have to run through all the different possibilities.

This is what I have been trying to say, before others started bringing up what JM said after the game and how JM reacted after the play was over. All of that is irrelevant in regards to how the play is called and reviewed. Based on the videos, and leaving out what JM said after the game, if you are the official looking at and reviewing that play, and you see the arm angle change and the elbow drop, is the QB trying to bring the ball back to his body, or is he trying to throw the ball into the ground to avoid the sack, or something else? Based on the video evidence only, I think the official can say JM was trying to do something, but what? I believe in the Blandino video there is a shot from the back. Also, IIRC, in the Johnny Football/Meetball thread there's a GIF. Yeah that's it. The NFL officials made up a rule on the spot, and the NFL modified the rule book to protect a certain QB. That completely ignores the fact the rule was cited and enforced in a game a year prior.

At the time, I hated it. However, since then, I have come to realize, it was the correct call. I can hate the result of it, but the call was correct.

Whether or not Johnny felt it was fumble is irrelevant in determining if the play call is correct. Cause that what it appears you are implying. If Johnny says it was a fumble, then it must a fumble. Case closed. All those pesky incompetent officials are wrong. Yeah, we should believe how a "rookie" reacts to a play as a basis in determining the correct play call.

If the was no irrefutable evidence as the poster states (as many here are claiming), then the official could have just as easily stated the play stands as called. Ok, simple question. What made the official change the call?

So what? The officials are supposed to consider how the players react after the play when reviewing a call? Should the officials ask for the players opinion?

Um, because he was. That's what it looks like in the replay. We will agree to disagree on the first part. But to say it's beside the point is flat out wrong. It is THE point. It's what determines if the ball was fumbled or an incomplete pass. It is the basis of why the call was reversed. The NFL officials disagree with you.