POLL: Mendenhall announcing Riley is the starter is:

I don't think Nelson should play so soon. I know the guy is tough as nails, but wouldn't another week help things heal? that's why i was so surprised by this announcement.

CougarClaw wrote:
I don't think Nelson should play so soon. I know the guy is tough as nails, but wouldn't another week help things heal? that's why i was so surprised by this announcement.

He didn't announce that Riley was the starter. he said that if he were medically cleared to play he would start.

It really is a conundrum. IF Heaps starts and plays well, shouldn't he be given the bowl start as well? I just can not see that, so I suspect RN starts Saturday. IF he doesn't, he should be done for the season.

Reading recent quotes, although he uses the if I get to play phrase appropriately, Riley sure sounds like a guy that thinks he will be playing.





If UH pulls off another of those overachievement games vs a jet lagged and sunburned opponent, this could be the trap game either QB might be glad the other guy started. Or it could reinjure Riley putting Jake in the Bowl game and if he does well in relief vs UH and in the Bowl, suddenly Jake is a front runner again for 2012.



Riley will go for the gusto and take the risk if given the opportunity.



It would be hard for Bronco to start Jake if Riley is cleared to play, because then if UH comes after and rattles Jake - how do you pull him and put in Riley at that point.





[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I would definitely start Heaps and only play Riley if needed to win...we need that boy for the bowl game and I'm afraid we might lose him if he plays at Hawaii.



Now with that said, I think Bronco is kind of dumb to announce a starter...especially Nelson.

how many games has Hawaii won because some key opponent was sunburned. I can't imagine playing in pads with a second degree burn somewhere on my back.



is that Hawaii's version of the Provo elevation advantage?

CougarClaw wrote:
how many games has Hawaii won because some key opponent was sunburned. I can't imagine playing in pads with a second degree burn somewhere on my back.



is that Hawaii's version of the Provo elevation advantage?

Hawaii can be clever. At times they start games very late when it is after midnight in the opponenents normal time zone. This game will start earlier - 2:30 local. My local UH fan buddy warned me that fans and players will experience a scorching sun - unless cloudy overcast weather intervenes. ESPN probably picked the start time on this one.



But Bronco indicated that the players will have a free day Thursday and former players have warned, when asked, that the current players dhould stay away from the beach - referrng to it as a trap and sunburn, dehydration, and heat exhaustion would be the culprits. It sneaks up on you. More than 2 hours of it - and players will likely feel drained or get a surprise sunburn.

runbyu1 wrote:
I would definitely start Heaps and only play Riley if needed to win...we need that boy for the bowl game and I'm afraid we might lose him if he plays at Hawaii.



Now with that said, I think Bronco is kind of dumb to announce a starter...especially Nelson.

Like I said above, Bronco did not announce Riley as the starter. Riley is not cleared medically to play, only to fly. Bronco said that Riley would be the starter if he is medically cleared to play. there is a major difference.

Cougarbib2 wrote:

how many games has Hawaii won because some key opponent was sunburned. I can't imagine playing in pads with a second degree burn somewhere on my back.



is that Hawaii's version of the Provo elevation advantage?

Hawaii can be clever. At times they start games very late when it is after midnight in the opponenents normal time zone. This game will start earlier - 2:30 local. My local UH fan buddy warned me that fans and players will experience a scorching sun - unless cloudy overcast weather intervenes. ESPN probably picked the start time on this one.



But Bronco indicated that the players will have a free day Thursday and former players have warned, when asked, that the current players dhould stay away from the beach - referrng to it as a trap and sunburn, dehydration, and heat exhaustion would be the culprits. It sneaks up on you. More than 2 hours of it - and players will likely feel drained or get a surprise sunburn.

Why on earth would coaches allow their players to go to the beach? I'm all for free time, but why wouldn't you limit their activities to video games and ping pong? Then stay an extra day or two and let everyone hit the beach then.

I think if somehow RN is cleared to play and he plays I think we see Jake transfer. The semester ends soon and Jake has to decide to stay or go soon. I think if Nelson plays we are saying bye to Jake.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Where's the option that says Bronco has a love affiar with the blue-collar player? I guess that answer is marginally embedded within the current options.

But the again, he "miraculously" healed.

And as for UH players, they love the smell of blood and fear. If Bronco plays RN I hope he has game planned for both qb's.

And as for the physical factor, its cumulative. Jet-lag (tho less for collegiate athletes) beach, sun, playing around, the island pace--which is about 70% of full speed--theres a reason people gop to hawaii to relax--at any rate, this is a real deal! I would say there is a statistically greater likelihood of byu playing flat and UH palying up (think UC Buffs last week) than the other way around. Even in 1984's NC year it took one of the most amazing plays in BYU history to salvage the game--i was at that game live, believe it or not.

So, its real!

Go Cougs. 24-23, BYU. RN gets reinjured and JH saves the game and we have another qb contro. ;-).

Aloha folks. Headed to Hawaii right now. I'm way excited.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

frdbtr wrote:

Like I said above, Bronco did not announce Riley as the starter. Riley is not cleared medically to play, only to fly. Bronco said that Riley would be the starter if he is medically cleared to play. there is a major difference.

yes you did say this twice. but it didn't make much sense to me either time. Odd point to try and drive home about the difference between a starter and a medically-cleared starter. Do you think Riley thinks of himself as second or third string because he got hurt? Not a chance.



Perhaps your point is that since everyone would play in front of him due to injury and because he won't see the field for the entire game, he can't possibly be called a "Starter". If that's your point, I'm going to disagree since starter is known as a position, not a condition nor an event. I'd argue this was the prevailing view in football as well. Coaches name positions and Bronco said he'd start Riley if he could, which is consistent with what he said earlier that Riley would have the position when he came back. Anyone else is simply holding down the fort until he comes back. The rest is semantics and not worth reiterating.



And if you disagree with the premise of the thread, why not just ignore it?

CougarClaw wrote:

Like I said above, Bronco did not announce Riley as the starter. Riley is not cleared medically to play, only to fly. Bronco said that Riley would be the starter if he is medically cleared to play. there is a major difference.

yes you did say this twice. but it didn't make much sense to me either time. Odd point to try and drive home about the difference between a starter and a medically-cleared starter. Do you think Riley thinks of himself as second or third string because he got hurt? Not a chance.



Perhaps your point is that since everyone would play in front of him due to injury and because he won't see the field for the entire game, he can't possibly be called a "Starter". If that's your point, I'm going to disagree since starter is known as a position, not a condition nor an event. I'd argue this was the prevailing view in football as well. Coaches name positions and Bronco said he'd start Riley if he could, which is consistent with what he said earlier that Riley would have the position when he came back. Anyone else is simply holding down the fort until he comes back. The rest is semantics and not worth reiterating.



And if you disagree with the premise of the thread, why not just ignore it?

Then why did you post a poll asking for opinions on Bronco's intelligence for doing exactly what you said is common practice in football?



By the way, there is a difference between saying "Riley will start" and saying "Riley will start if medically cleared" in fact it is a huge difference since if Riley is not medically cleared then Jake is the starter.

trueblue72 wrote:
I think if somehow RN is cleared to play and he plays I think we see Jake transfer. The semester ends soon and Jake has to decide to stay or go soon. I think if Nelson plays we are saying bye to Jake.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

And just where do you think he will go in search of his greener pasture.



Wynn likely gets two more years - making Utah a bad move for Jake as Wynn, like Nelson, will beat out Jake as long as he is healthy.



USU keeps producing QBs better than Jake.



Price at UW is better than Jake and has two more years to play.



Where do you think Jake will go?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

frdbtr wrote:

Then why did you post a poll asking for opinions on Bronco's intelligence for doing exactly what you said is common practice in football?

What did I say that led you to think I was asking about Bronco's intelligence? I think I questioned a decision, but that's hardly a sweeping indictment of intelligence.

frdbtr wrote:

By the way, there is a difference between saying "Riley will start" and saying "Riley will start if medically cleared" in fact it is a huge difference since if Riley is not medically cleared then Jake is the starter.

So your point is that "starter" is simply defined as the person who starts the game. I don't constrain the word nearly that far, as Bronco has made it clear Riley is ahead of Jake on the depth chart. I use the word Starter as synonymous with first string on the depth chart which Bronco has been very clear about. Jake is currently the backup even if he's first on the field on Saturday.



Also, by your logic, Bronco announced nothing of value. Sort of like announcing a recruit "will sign or he won't.", since it's completely out of his hands. I think Bronco announced very valuable information which the poll evaluates. apparently 30 other CC readers also thought it was interesting enough to vote for.

CougarClaw wrote:

Then why did you post a poll asking for opinions on Bronco's intelligence for doing exactly what you said is common practice in football?

What did I say that led you to think I was asking about Bronco's intelligence? I think I questioned a decision, but that's hardly a sweeping indictment of intelligence.

frdbtr wrote:

By the way, there is a difference between saying "Riley will start" and saying "Riley will start if medically cleared" in fact it is a huge difference since if Riley is not medically cleared then Jake is the starter.

So your point is that "starter" is simply defined as the person who starts the game. I don't constrain the word nearly that far, as Bronco has made it clear Riley is ahead of Jake on the depth chart. I use the word Starter as synonymous with first string on the depth chart which Bronco has been very clear about. Jake is currently the backup even if he's first on the field on Saturday.



Also, by your logic, Bronco announced nothing of value. Sort of like announcing a recruit "will sign or he won't.", since it's completely out of his hands. I think Bronco announced very valuable information which the poll evaluates. apparently 30 other CC readers also thought it was interesting enough to vote for.

That is exactly what I am saying. It is a non story and should get no pub. Bronco is saying, once again, exactly what he has said since Riley left the Idaho game with his injury......that when he is cleared to play he will start. Whether it is against Hawaii or in the bowl game.



Frankly, I want Riley starting on Saturday because I think if Jake starts we lose, or it is a lot closer then it should be. With Riley, I think we cruise to an (relatively) easy win.

Cougarbib2 wrote:

I think if somehow RN is cleared to play and he plays I think we see Jake transfer. The semester ends soon and Jake has to decide to stay or go soon. I think if Nelson plays we are saying bye to Jake.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

And just where do you think he will go in search of his greener pasture.



Wynn likely gets two more years - making Utah a bad move for Jake as Wynn, like Nelson, will beat out Jake as long as he is healthy.



USU keeps producing QBs better than Jake.



Price at UW is better than Jake and has two more years to play.



Where do you think Jake will go?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Not sure where he'd go, but I think he'll leave. I was merely pointing out he'll have to make a decision soon.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">