Exposure?! Please!

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:53 am

It is a big country. I fail to see how players contacting us is a bad thing. I've never worked in any endeavor where potential customers calling in on their own is not something to try and get. We still have the ability to evaluate them. My guess is that the staff gets contacted by 100 players who aren't D1 players for every Anthony Glaud who turns out to be.

Further, who knows why they aren't being recruited by a more local school? Weird things happen all the time.

To think we're going to get out of our ESPN TV exposure is just unrealistic....it is not going to happen. Regional networks are no substitute--we've had those for years, and it just didn't help.

I worry about this from a different angle. If the MAC continues to offer up empty stadiums and average teams with lackluster records, I am worried that ESPN will dump us when the contract is up. No way ESPN was excited about a nationally televised game between a 1-9 team and a 4-6 team on a losing streak. Even on a Tuesday.

Everyone argues that we don't want to drop to I-AA, for good and valid reasons. To me, this is the same argument in a different way.

San Diego Falcon · Post by **San Diego Falcon** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:08 pm

I worry about this from a different angle. If the MAC continues to offer up empty stadiums and average teams with lackluster records, I am worried that ESPN will dump us when the contract is up. No way ESPN was excited about a nationally televised game between a 1-9 team and a 4-6 team on a losing streak. Even on a Tuesday.

As long as any college football game brings in better ratings on Tues/Wed than dominos, poker touraments from five years ago, and world's strongest man contests, I think ESPN will try to renew the contract, because their only other options are the Sun Belt and C-USA, whose stadiums look just as empty as MAC stadiums on weeknights.

Regarding the records of the teams that played, I remember there were rumblings before this season's schedule was released that the MAC would be playing ALL of their Nov games on Wed nights, which would have let ESPN choose the best game to telecast. That turned out not to be the case.

If we had played all of our games on Sat the last 4 years without ESPN coverage and thus not brought it talent from outside our normal recruiting area, how much worse would our 4-7 record be right now?

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:49 pm

Warthog wrote:OK, let me try a different angle. If Glaud (and I am just using him for exemplary purposes, this is no why an attempt to comment on his talents) is such a talented player, why are the schools in his 'local' area overlooking him that he has to look to a school like BG for a scholarship? He attended camps at Rutgers, Syracuse and Maryland. If a player attends camps at three schools like that and still has to be out looking for someone to give him a scholarship, I'm not sure that is the player that I want us going after.

The only other interest Thomas James had was for South Carolina State. Hardwick and Bullock's profile doesn't list any other schools. Those appear to be guys that are outside our normal recruiting area that we have picked up. Again, I am not commenting specifically on these guys. Just saying that we could probably get the same level of talent by going harder after kids in our own backyard.

Glaud was being looked at by Iowa as a fall back for Arvil Nelson, but Nelson and Stanzi signed with the hawkeyes (they were two OH QB's we offered, btw). I don't know what the other schools did with their QB's. Omar Jacobs had his deal fall through at KSU and was down to us or Buffalo...should we have taken a pass on him because he was from far away Florida and didn't have interest from anyone else?

Glaud had some serious academic issues pror to his senior year IIRC...that could have dampened the enthusiasm for him.

Thomas James was an early commit to Clemson. I'm not sure what happened with him there, but I do recall we were on him late and that he was recommended by a coaching connection (I want to say it was Blackney).

I guess I'm just flummoxed by anyone having a problem with us having kids and/or their coaches contact us...they send a tape, the staff looks at it and if there's interest they bring them in for a visit or maybe they go see them play basketball (as was the case with Charles Sharon) to evaluate them.

If we have a national reputation that leads coaches and players to try to get here that's great! I think it's a sign of strength that coaches from Florida, Virginia and elsewhere call us when they find a kid that maybe they don't have a slot for, but are deserving of a scolarship.

I really DO NOT want to see us turning kids down because some other school hasn't offered them. Our coaches need to rely on their own eyes, exoperience and skills to evaluate talent.

.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:50 am

Flipper wrote: Nate Davis was on BGSU's radar, so was AAron Opelt. The staff decided they didn't wnt to go after them.

Yet another reason I have no faith in this staff's ability to turn things around. Nate Davis was a flat out STUD, and all the academic stuff about him was apparently overblown. The rumors were that he favored UT over BG anyways, but for both teams to pull back from him was a major mistake on both their parts.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:54 am

We'll see about Nate Davis...I hope he stays eligible, but the histroy of college football is littered with kids who stayed eligible for a year or two before blowing out. His brother Jose flamed out at Kent after a year or two...he did manage to beat BGSU at Kent one year.

It wasn't just BGSU and UT that pulled back on him, there were a number of BCS schools that pulled back too.