Will Notre Dame QB Dayne Crist end up at UW

[Ole]

Ole... would you rather live in the current?, within the past 20 years?, or ....40+ years ago? Wisconsin's been a top 20 team for most of the lives of current high school recruits.

14/20 have not been top 20 years. AP/USA today polls http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/polls_1936_present.html
91 92 94 95 96 97 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2007 2008 2009 not top 20
You have been a cyclical program for 20 years with nice seasons and unranked ones.
You are who you do not think you are. A mid tier BIG10 school like Iowa, MSU, and NW.

 

[Ole]

"In the minds of 18-year olds...." Great argument. So you're arguing that the Badgers are an incredibly relevant program to people who have been watching football for all of 4-5 years. If it makes you feel better, run with it.

Badger envy.... that's rich. BB vs Kill? To me, it's not even close. I would rather have Kill representing my football program than BB any day of the week. BB is a juvenile delinquent, even avid Badger fans are willing to concede that point.

I've never argued that Alvarez is keeping BB afloat. Sure, he handed BB something that would have been difficult for him to screw up. No doubt about that. But it's hard to say how much Barry is influencing things these days.

Let's face it; Badger football in it's recent run has been about the Offensive Line and the offense/running game in general. Period. The defense has never been exceptional (even with BB being a defensive coach). Chryst and Bostad ARE the success of the program.

It'll be interesting to see if Chryst gets a head gig in the next few weeks. If Chryst and Bostad move on this offseason and the Badgers are still one of the main contenders in the BT in 2013, I'd be willing to concede that perhaps BB isn't a complete buffoon.

As will I

 

[Badger2010]

"In the minds of 18-year olds...." Great argument. So you're arguing that the Badgers are an incredibly relevant program to people who have been watching football for all of 4-5 years. If it makes you feel better, run with it.

I think he referenced 18 year olds because that is the age of recruits. For their entire life, Wisconsin has been very good to great. That's important.

 

[Ole]

I think he referenced 18 year olds because that is the age of recruits. For their entire life, Wisconsin has been very good to great. That's important.

14/20 have not been top 20 years. AP/USA today polls http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/p...6_present.html
91 92 94 95 96 97 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2007 2008 2009 not top 20
You have been a cyclical program for 20 years with nice seasons and unranked ones.
You are who you do not think you are. A mid tier BIG10 school like Iowa, MSU, and NW.

 

[Unregistered User]

I think he referenced 18 year olds because that is the age of recruits. For their entire life, Wisconsin has been very good to great. That's important.

"Great" is a table reserved for National Championship winners.

You can take a seat at the kid's table.

 

[zambam]

Most recruits care about more than just on the field results. Just thought I'd point that out.

 

[Badger2010]

14/20 have not been top 20 years. AP/USA today polls http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/polls_1936_present.html
91 92 94 95 96 97 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2007 2008 2009 not top 20
You have been a cyclical program for 20 years with nice seasons and unranked ones.
You are who you do not think you are. A mid tier BIG10 school like Iowa, MSU, and NW.

Actually, we were top 20 in 2004 and 2009. We only finished unranked in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2008 since the 93' season. So we actually finished ranked 11/19 times.. I think 9/19 top 20 finishes.

 

[Badger2010]

"Great" is a table reserved for National Championship winners.

You can take a seat at the kid's table.

No need to be a dick. I'm not here trashing the Gophers, but if we are at the kid's table, you are the mice on the floor, feeding off of our crumbs.

 

[Badger2010]

Most recruits care about more than just on the field results. Just thought I'd point that out.

I agree, I only pointed that out because it seems like the point was not understood.

 

[Unregistered User]

No need to be a dick.

And no need for you or the dick-head's that troll this board to be here.

 

[BleedGopher]

No need to be a dick. I'm not here trashing the Gophers, but if we are at the kid's table, you are the mice on the floor, feeding off of our crumbs.

You gotta love a person who says there is "no need to be a dick" and then proceeds to call a fan base on its own message board "mice" who "feed off of our crumbs."

Can't make it up.

Go Gophers!!

 

[Badger_inohiovalley]

14/20 have not been top 20 years. AP/USA today polls http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/p...6_present.html
91 92 94 95 96 97 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2007 2008 2009 not top 20
You have been a cyclical program for 20 years with nice seasons and unranked ones.
You are who you do not think you are. A mid tier BIG10 school like Iowa, MSU, and NW.

Thank you! Now for proper context, do you mind providing what teams averaged a higher place finishing ahead of Wisconsin in that period (1992-2011)? You won't find 20.

From 1992-2011, there will be 9 UW teams that finish in the top 20 with 11 seasons finished in the top 25. You won't find 20 teams ahead of Wisconsin with that.

I saw someone mention that high schoolers are just now watching college football. Here are UW's final rankings of the last 7 years: 7, 16, UR, 24, 7, 15, 17

This year, they'll finish somewhere between 4 and 16, win or lose. 7 of 8 seasons in the top 25. Those kids know who Wisconsin is.

I know....it's tough to just concede that Wisconsin has it great right now.

 

[Ole]

Actually, we were top 20 in 2004 and 2009. We only finished unranked in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2008 since the 93' season. So we actually finished ranked 11/19 times.. I think 9/19 top 20 finishes.

2011 now right? so 20 years would be 1991.

so 9 of 20 top 20 finishes. Yes clearly a perennial(every year) top 20 team.

 

[Badger2010]

You gotta love a person who says there is "no need to be a dick" and then proceeds to call a fan base on its own message board "mice" who "feed off of our crumbs."

Can't make it up.

Go Gophers!!

Not one post of mine before this response was even remotely insulting. I like Kill and I think you guys are heading in the right direction.

 

[Badger2010]

And no need for you or the dick-head's that troll this board to be here.

There's no need for you to be here either. However, like you, I enjoy visiting this site. It's a public forum. I've been here for a few months and I only post in threads about Wisconsin started by Gopher fans. If you don't like it, then stop reading my posts. Not too difficult to find a solution.

 

[Badger2010]

2011 now right? so 20 years would be 1991.

so 9 of 20 top 20 finishes. Yes clearly a perennial(every year) top 20 team.

Not one team has finished rank each of the last 20 years.

Want to try again?

 

[Ole]

Not one team has finished rank each of the last 20 years.

Want to try again?

Sorry got my oblivious wisky trolls mixed up.
Ok, so less than half, 9/20, the time you are a top 20 team.

Or are we just going the past few years now? It was 20 years, now it's 7? How about high schoolers who just started watching 4 years ago? Where's the frame of reference again?
I'll concede wisky's on a good run, i'm not oblivious like you are.
A nice cyclical BCS team like Washington, Boston College, ASU, MSU, Iowa, etc. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Badger_inohiovalley]

A nice cyclical BCS team like Washington, Boston College, ASU, MSU, Iowa, etc. Nothing more, nothing less.

How cute of you to pick five programs that in the last 20 years are distantly behind Wisconsin. Washington has had some good runs in the 80s and 90s....so that's fair. Michigan State hasn't seen Wisconsin's success since the 50s and 60s (even more recent than Minnesota). BC, ASU and Iowa have never had a 20 year run like Wisconsin. Here are the numbers between your choice of programs in these 20 years, just for fun:

Wisconsin
Average wins per season: 8.55
Conference Championships: 5
BCS Bowls: 5
Bowl Record with one to play: 10-6

Boston College
Average wins per season: 7.35
Conference Championships: 0
BCS Bowls: 0 (Best bowl played, Outback Bowl)
Bowl Record: 10-5 with only two bowls above the third tier

Iowa
Average wins per season: 6.95
Conference Championships: 2
BCS Bowls: 2
Bowl Record with one to play: 8-5

Washington
Average wins per season: 6.25
Conference Championships: 2
BCS Bowls: 2
Bowl Record with one to play: 3-10

MSU
Average wins per season: 6.35
Conference Championships: 1
BCS Bowls: 0
Bowl Record with one to play: 2-11

ASU
Average wins per season: 6.4
Conference Championships: 2
BCS Bowls: 1
Bowl Record with one to play: 3-9

 

[Ole]

Since you put so much work into it.
Those were examples, none of your stats change my mind, and those were simply off the top of the head examples. You are a middle tier BCS team, maybe a Washington St. with a better transition.
Your program is on a nice run. It's been built by a good coach and his staff following a formula and sticking to it through a coaching transition from within the ranks.

You also have an arrogant coach. You cannot seriously argue against that.
He's been functional enough to not screw things up, but he has good assistants and an AD who built the program from nothing as a coach. BB has not put his stamp on anything, your D is average at best and not the face of your program as would be expected by a defensive coach taking over.

Your program is at an all time high, as have others at some points. All of those teams I listed and many others have had nice runs and peaked out in BCS bowls, all have faltered and fallen at some point after.

It is more likely your program will struggle should the formula for success be changed at some point. It's happened before, it will happen again.

It's MY OPINION that BB is arrogant enough to change the formula when either BA is out of the picture and/or Chryst/Bostad also leave.

If he struggles, he will do so without grace and class, he has none, he has handled the little adversity thrown at him with childish rants, misbehavior, and dumb coaching moves.
He's yours now and forever, congrats. It can never happen though right, cause you're a perennial top 20 contender. HA!

 

[Badger_inohiovalley]

A few things things:

- Washington State has never had a run like Wisconsin. And they have nothing close to the built in advantages Wisconsin has from demographics, to being the top college sports town, to having a top 17 university in the world. I am entertained by your attempts to show us who we are. You are getting more ridiculous with your claims.
- If Bielema was a waste, the program would have turned over by now. It's complete folly to think that a total moron running a major football program could have his AD and assistants somehow keep the thing from collapsing. That take is too stupid to even take seriously.
- Of the programs you named, only Washington (80s and 90s) or MSU (50s and 60s) have had runs like Wisconsin. So you've undersold Wisconsin. ASU, Iowa and BC would drool for what Wisconsin has put together.

1 More thing....

Bielema is arrogant. So was Alvarez. So was Brewster, though he had nothing to be arrogant about. Why would I care that Bielema is arrogant? Generally, winners are arrogant. Dantonio is arrogant. So was Rich Rod. Spurrier. Saban. Miles. Carroll. Stoops. Meyer. I've heard someone call pretty much every successful coach, arrogant. That characteristic usually accompanies confidence, and pride. Winners are often called arrogant. In the case of Minnesota fans....you guys have every right to think Bielema is arrogant. All he's done is run roughshod over your program and let Tim Brewster know who his daddy was. But I agree with Coach Jerry Kill.....Bielema is a good guy. Glad we have him.

 

[Ole]

A few things things:

- Washington State has never had a run like Wisconsin. And they have nothing close to the built in advantages Wisconsin has from demographics, to being the top college sports town, to having a top 17 university in the world. I am entertained by your attempts to show us who we are. You are getting more ridiculous with your claims.
- If Bielema was a waste, the program would have turned over by now. It's complete folly to think that a total moron running a major football program could have his AD and assistants somehow keep the thing from collapsing. That take is too stupid to even take seriously.
- Of the programs you named, only Washington (80s and 90s) or MSU (50s and 60s) have had runs like Wisconsin. So you've undersold Wisconsin. ASU, Iowa and BC would drool for what Wisconsin has put together.

1 More thing....

Bielema is arrogant. So was Alvarez. So was Brewster, though he had nothing to be arrogant about. Why would I care that Bielema is arrogant? Generally, winners are arrogant. Dantonio is arrogant. So was Rich Rod. Spurrier. Saban. Miles. Carroll. Stoops. Meyer. I've heard someone call pretty much every successful coach, arrogant. That characteristic usually accompanies confidence, and pride. Winners are often called arrogant. In the case of Minnesota fans....you guys have every right to think Bielema is arrogant. All he's done is run roughshod over your program and let Tim Brewster know who his daddy was. But I agree with Coach Jerry Kill.....Bielema is a good guy. Glad we have him.

K, Bye bye now.

 

[Unregistered User]

A few things things:

- Washington State has never had a run like Wisconsin. And they have nothing close to the built in advantages Wisconsin has from demographics, to being the top college sports town, to having a top 17 university in the world. I am entertained by your attempts to show us who we are. You are getting more ridiculous with your claims.
- If Bielema was a waste, the program would have turned over by now. It's complete folly to think that a total moron running a major football program could have his AD and assistants somehow keep the thing from collapsing. That take is too stupid to even take seriously.
- Of the programs you named, only Washington (80s and 90s) or MSU (50s and 60s) have had runs like Wisconsin. So you've undersold Wisconsin. ASU, Iowa and BC would drool for what Wisconsin has put together.

1 More thing....

Bielema is arrogant. So was Alvarez. So was Brewster, though he had nothing to be arrogant about. Why would I care that Bielema is arrogant? Generally, winners are arrogant. Dantonio is arrogant. So was Rich Rod. Spurrier. Saban. Miles. Carroll. Stoops. Meyer. I've heard someone call pretty much every successful coach, arrogant. That characteristic usually accompanies confidence, and pride. Winners are often called arrogant. In the case of Minnesota fans....you guys have every right to think Bielema is arrogant. All he's done is run roughshod over your program and let Tim Brewster know who his daddy was. But I agree with Coach Jerry Kill.....Bielema is a good guy. Glad we have him.

Really? You're still trying to "win" here? Get a life.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Some other points:

I agree the Badgers should not expect the results they got from Wilson with any other transfer. He was a once in a program type guy.

Wilson did not have six years, he graduated from NCS in three years. Gray could have 10 years and not play as well as Wilson did this year. I consider myself fortunate as a fan to have seen Wilson in a Badger uniform for a year.

So Gophers fans who don't like the transfer rule and a guy beating out someone with time in the program are not going to embrace Kill's combing the Jr. college ranks?

Good discussion about the merits and downside of the transfer rule.

I do agree with you that it is completely off base to say that a season was pointless without winning a Nat'l Championship. They are playing in the Rose Bowl after winning a Big 10 Championship. It was a great season. For a small stretch there, I think almost all Badger fans were a little disheartened because of the fact that WI isn't like LSU/Bama/Oklahoma, and a legitimate National Championship level team is probably going to be rare in Madison. That could change, they do seem to be moving in that direction. However, their season was a success, as much as it pains me to say it.

Wilson was an incredible player for you guys. I will say that he walked into a perfect situation. WI has the best running game in the country and pretty good WRs (for Big 10 standards). Wilson fit that offense perfect and he played spectacular. That said, it's purely hypothetical to question what Gray would or would not do. If Gray would have been playing QB from day1 and he had that much talent around him, I think he'd have some pretty spectacular numbers. As good as Wilson? PRobably not, I think Wilson was the best player in the conference.

I don't think the transfer rule and the JuCo rule are really comparable. This transfer rule is an exception to the general transfer rule, where you have to sit out a season. Junior College is designed for a completely different purpose than this transfer rule. They simply aren't comparable. Like I said earlier though, before this thread was hijacked by Sconny trolls, i'm torn on the rule.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Not one team has finished rank each of the last 20 years.

Want to try again?

LOL....some are a lot closer to 9/20. You are closer to being a perennial not top 20 team than a perrenial top 20 team.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

No need to be a dick. I'm not here trashing the Gophers, but if we are at the kid's table, you are the mice on the floor, feeding off of our crumbs.

Yet, you're here, obsessed with our program.

 

[Badger1bob]

14/20 have not been top 20 years. AP/USA today polls http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/polls_1936_present.html
91 92 94 95 96 97 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2007 2008 2009 not top 20
You have been a cyclical program for 20 years with nice seasons and unranked ones.
You are who you do not think you are. A mid tier BIG10 school like Iowa, MSU, and NW.

Ole, your reality is what you choose to believe and has no relationship with the facts. Wisconsin has won 60 games in BB first six years as a coach. How many programs in the country have won 60 or more during that time span. Don't let the facts get in the way of making your argument.

Also the same Ole I recall back in August lecturing us on how UW would never be able to replace all those NFL draft choices. UW was really headed for a rebuilding year even with the transfer of R. Wilson. Any more wisdom for us? Time to eat it man.

 

[Badger2010]

Yet, you're here, obsessed with our program.

Obsessed? You don't actually believe that...do you? Come on...

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Obsessed? You don't actually believe that...do you? Come on...

Yeah, I think all trolls are obsessed. It's not at all a compliment to our program or anything, it's really just proof of something missing in your life. That's how it is with all trolls. They are the bottom of the barrel type of people.

I think most of the people who are posting on gopherhole are obsessed a bit with Gopher football. It's really a niche team, that isn't even playing a game for 9 months, yet, you're here. I'm here and most Gopher fans are here because we are obsessed. The same holds true for you.

It's how it is with all trolls. I would even say it about Gopher trolls who would spam Badger boards. They are losers. They are the lowest common denominator of their fanbase.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Ole, your reality is what you choose to believe and has no relationship with the facts. Wisconsin has won 60 games in BB first six years as a coach. How many programs in the country have won 60 or more during that time span. Don't let the facts get in the way of making your argument.

Also the same Ole I recall back in August lecturing us on how UW would never be able to replace all those NFL draft choices. UW was really headed for a rebuilding year even with the transfer of R. Wilson. Any more wisdom for us? Time to eat it man.

Everyone's reality is what they choose to believe. You can make the numbers work to prove your point and so can they other side. You just pick the arbitrary cutoff point to prove your point.

 

[mplsbadger]

You're not really serious, are you?

I am serious. To clarify, when I say 'what is the difference' I'm not referring to the difference from an academic standpoint. I'm talking about the stated objection to bringing someone in because they are going to take someone else's spot, cause morale problems, etc. It was in that regard that I'm saying "what is the difference between bringing in Wilson/Crist and bringing in Wills, Laurence, Simmons, etc."