If Pryor entered the supplemental draft would you pick him.

Also, people don't realize that the money that college football (or basketball) brings in supports all the other athletic programs at a school.Universally? Where is your proof? This is a myth.

I would be willing to bet that at a fine institution such as East Carolina, football, at very best, is self sustaining from a financial perspective. But even that would put ECU in the minority of self-sustaining FB programs, so it certainly wouldn't shock me if their football program (along with the rest of C-USA) are running in the red.

I can't tell if you're joking or not.
He improved each year.
2,772 yards 65 comp% 27 TDs 11 INTS 157.9 QB rating (in a pro style offense)
And the physical skillset is undeniable
A 6th round pick well worth the risk.I would argue that Ohio St. is nowhere near a "Pro Style" offense.

While Pryor was padding his numbers against; Marshall, Ohio, E. Michigan and the middle/bottom of the Big Ten how did he do against competitive teams:
Wisconsin: 14-28 156yds 50% Comp 0 TD 1 INT
Miami: 12-27 233yds 44% Comp 1 TD 0 INT
Iowa: 18-33 195yds 54.5% Comp 1 TD 2 INT
Arkansas: He played well 14-25 221yds 56% Comp 2 TD 0 INT

Keep in mind he won't be able to put up the run numbers he did in the NCAA at the NFL level. Pryor is not, and I don't expect will develop into, a proficient passer at the NFL level. Would I risk a sixth rounder on him as an "athlete", yes. Projected as a full-time QB, no way.

Some interesting info:

Behind the Blue Disk - FBS Athletic Revenues and Expenses - NCAA.org (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Behind+the+Blue+Disk/Behind+the+Blue+Disk+-+FBS+Athletic+Revenues+and+Expenses)

NCAA report: Economy cuts into college athletics - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686)

The 12 Most Valuable Teams in NCAA Football | Business Pundit (http://www.businesspundit.com/the-12-most-valuable-teams-in-ncaa-football/)

Universally? Where is your proof? This is a myth.

I would be willing to bet that at a fine institution such as East Carolina, football, at very best, is self sustaining from a financial perspective. But even that would put ECU in the minority of self-sustaining FB programs, so it certainly wouldn't shock me if their football program (along with the rest of C-USA) are running in the red.


First off, I work at a University. Second, I know and work with people in the Athletic Department so I know how it works. You on the other hand are making claims about it being a "myth" when it is in fact a reality. Where is YOUR proof that it's a myth?

How Much of a Drain are “Other Sports” « (http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/05/03/how-much-of-a-drain-are-other-sports/)

Also, if it goes in the red for so long without another program carrying it, chances are it'll be shutdown.

First off, I work at a University. Second, I know and work with people in the Athletic Department so I know how it works. You on the other hand are making claims about it being a "myth" when it is in fact a reality. Where is YOUR proof that it's a myth?

How Much of a Drain are “Other Sports” « (http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/05/03/how-much-of-a-drain-are-other-sports/)

Also, if it goes in the red for so long without another program carrying it, chances are it'll be shutdown.College Football program. Shut down. That's a good one. I lol'ed.

You must not be familiar with the burden of proof concept. When you can't back up a claim, I can just tell you that you can't back up your claim, and then you have to go out and prove it.

Point of the Game: The Dominance and the Myth of College Football II (http://pointofthegame.blogspot.com/2010/12/dominance-and-myth-of-college-football_22.html)

The football data highlights the nasty secret of football and college sport: the world segregates by the vast majority of haves-sort; some sort of haves; and a super elite of absurd abundance, rather like the modern U.S. wealth distribution system. A staggering 94 percent of college football programs lose money; their revenue streams do not cover the costs of the program. This refutes the often cited claim that football pays for the rest of the athletic program. In a very very very few programs, maybe 10, football may generate enough surplus to help support other college sports, but in the vast majority of programs football programs vacuum up 85 percent of the expenditures and do not cover their costs.


I am surprised that the University of Central Florida is one of the two or three programs in the nation that can sustain an athletics program based strictly off the revenues of its football program. I would not have expected that. I know, for a fact, they are pretty much alone in terms of colleges of their size.

Some interesting info:

Behind the Blue Disk - FBS Athletic Revenues and Expenses - NCAA.org (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Behind+the+Blue+Disk/Behind+the+Blue+Disk+-+FBS+Athletic+Revenues+and+Expenses)

NCAA report: Economy cuts into college athletics - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5490686)

The 12 Most Valuable Teams in NCAA Football | Business Pundit (http://www.businesspundit.com/the-12-most-valuable-teams-in-ncaa-football/)


Solidifies what I was saying about big sport athletics paying for all the small ones. THIS is why you can't pay athletes beyond their scholarships and room and board.

"Football and men's basketball are the only two sports you have any chance of making money," he said. "If you start splitting that up between 30 or 40 sports, you start losing money."

College Football program. Shut down. That's a good one. I lol'ed.




Hofstra Football Canceled: Program Shut Down, Report Says (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/hofstra-football-canceled_n_378516.html)

Keep LOL'ing bro.

^^ In response to that crazy rant above, I have to say your stance is a bit misguided. Athletes are under a set of rules to prevent advantages from bigger schools with more resources. It has to be in place to keep the advantages equal. However, it's apparent that the bigger schools aren't abiding by these rules as we've seen time and time again the programs being brought down.

What they should do is this. Coaches that get caught breaking (or ignoring) NCAA infractions, they should be fired, fined, and banned from coaching (beginning at a 5 year ban to indefinitely). Period. Tressel should never be allowed to coach again in the NCAA. It's not his first offense, and most likely won't be his last. (and many other coaches fall under this as well)

Right now, a coach can have all sorts of NCAA infractions against them, jet to another school and nothing happens.(in any sport) How in the hell does John Calapari still have a job in the NCAA system? It's mind boggling.


Paying athletes? Nope. SHouldn't happen. They get paid for room and board, education, and the cost of books. I dare you add that all up and see how much it equates to. Also, people don't realize that the money that college football (or basketball) brings in supports all the other athletic programs at a school.

EAST CAROLINA OFFICIAL ATHLETIC SITE - Facilities (http://www.ecupirates.com/facilities/facility-construction-2010.html)

Look at that sweet new Olympic Complex going up at ECU. Who do think pays for that new soccer, softball, track field? Football does, that's who. Who do you think pays for the girls basketball team to travel from place to place? Football and men's basketball, that's who.

It sounds like you're one of the infractions people for the NCAA. His players were trading in rings that they earned for tats. Big deal! They all should've been suspended for a couple of games. They earned the rings and they should be allowed to do what ever the hell they want with them. A ring for some tats? We're not talking about thousands of dollars here. lol. Tressel turned his head an lied about it. Again, he should've taken his 2-3 game suspension and be done with it.

You must not be familiar with the burden of proof concept. When you can't back up a claim, I can just tell you that you can't back up your claim, and then you have to go out and prove it.

Point of the Game: The Dominance and the Myth of College Football II (http://pointofthegame.blogspot.com/2010/12/dominance-and-myth-of-college-football_22.html)

?? You haven't backed up yours either.


I am surprised that the University of Central Florida is one of the two or three programs in the nation that can sustain an athletics program based strictly off the revenues of its football program. I would not have expected that. I know, for a fact, they are pretty much alone in terms of colleges of their size.

How do you know this for a fact? You have the numbers? For somebody claiming to know something as fact, you have shown very little evidence. I bet you quite a few universities can as well. West Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, USF, and I can roll on down the list of BCS conferences and list their teams as well.


The football data highlights the nasty secret of football and college sport: the world segregates by the vast majority of haves-sort; some sort of haves; and a super elite of absurd abundance, rather like the modern U.S. wealth distribution system. A staggering 94 percent of college football programs lose money; their revenue streams do not cover the costs of the program. This refutes the often cited claim that football pays for the rest of the athletic program. In a very very very few programs, maybe 10, football may generate enough surplus to help support other college sports, but in the vast majority of programs football programs vacuum up 85 percent of the expenditures and do not cover their costs.

Where did this bullshit come from? Are they talking about all three divisions? (I,II,III??) Can you get something more credible?


Here you go.

How Profitable is Football in Conference USA? « (http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/04/26/how-profitable-is-football-in-conference-usa/)

Take in consideration, this is the lowly Conference USA.

Terrelle Pryor, interestingly, profiles quite well as a supplemental draft prospect. Really well, actually. Good height, strong build, a nice pedigree, being highly recruited out of PA. And really, he's started a ton of games (34) at Ohio State, was underrated with his accuracy this year, moves the chains, and doesn't have an obscenely high sack rate or anything (a fairly standard 6%).

The concerns about Pryor, I believe, aren't a mirage. He's a 21 year old kid. Does he truly "get it?" Does he understand what he needs to work on to improve and succeed at the next level? Well, he's young and likely still has people telling him what he needs to work on rather than understanding it for himself.

My concerns about Pryor are similar in nature to the concerns many had about Blaine Gabbert coming out. The differences of course could be as simple as Pryor's off-field activity being scrutinized in Columbus where Gabbert went largely unscrutinized in Columbia.

If you need your QB comparisons made along racial lines, Pryor is very similar to Josh Freeman in college. Freeman never ran as much, so he had less perceived translation to the NFL, but Freeman also had less necessity to run in the Big 12. Pryor often ran out of necessity, and while you could argue that it could have hindered his development as a passer, when you look at what you have in Pryor, you see a guy who looks a lot like the incredibly flawed first rounders of past seasons.

He succeeds in a good situation in the NFL, and fails in a poor situation. Which makes him...a pretty standard first rounder (but not top five pick) from the past four NFL drafts. Pryor's questions are, at least, more related to his off-field conduct than his on field performance, which gets graded often as only a negative.

If he enters the supplemental draft, I think a fourth round pick would be value well spent on Pryor as a QB.