Responding to a question about student-athlete compensation in the context of the Arian Foster allegations, David Cutcliffe said schools can’t pay kids the full cost of attendance because “…nobody is really getting rich off of this”.
Cutcliffe is making somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.8 million per year. Rich? As we like to say here at the blog, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
The OBC wants you to think that Jadeveon Clowney might not be available for South Carolina’s opener. Really.
If you want to read a tongue bath about Mike Slive’s leadership, this article’s for you. The capper is this wonderful quote in which he explains the secret of his success:
“By definition, a conference has two seemingly incompatible components that have to operate simultaneously,” explains Slive, “(1) passionate competitive rivalries, and (2) a group of institutions that needs to come together as a single organization to strengthen each and every unit and the conference as a whole. We’ve had to try and balance that for almost 80 years, but only now is there an expectation that even in the pursuit of our individual goals, the conference needs to get stronger by moving forward together.”
In English, it’s very simple: whatever pays the most, that’s what he’s for.
You know, my original intent in posting about this USA Today interview with Bill Hancock was to note that even the BCS’ own flack won’t deny that the college football playoff is
n’t going to grow past its current four-team configuration. But then I got to the last paragraph…
“From the start, this was not about the money,” he said. “Sure there’s more money. There will be more money for everybody in the playoff. It’s a very good thing, obviously. But what this was about was doing what’s best for the game, preserving the regular season, preserving the bowl experience for all athletes in college football, not just the ones in the playoff. That was the central core of all the discussions.”
… and realized the whole piece was nothing more than a bad how-can-you-tell-when-Bill Hancock-is-lying joke.
Stay tuned a few years from now when he assures us all that the move to twelve teams is about doing what’s best for the game, too. Bigger is always better, right?
Gag me with a spoon:
The conference commissioners and college administrators who oversee college football’s new championship format, which will begin in 2014, expect to unveil its name and logo at their meeting in Pasadena, Calif., next month, executive director Bill Hancock said.
That title, Hancock said, will not include a sponsor.
“It won’t be ‘The Vizio Championship Tournament,’” Hancock said, using the Rose Bowl title sponsor as an example. “The Final Four doesn’t have one. The Masters doesn’t. The Super Bowl. That’s the kind of event we have.”
The group has narrowed the candidates for the name to a “small number,” Hancock said. It will be simple, straightforward and, as he described it, “not cutesy.”
So, the man who said we didn’t need the event now says the event doesn’t need a sponsor. This is just an oblique way of saying “nobody’s offered us enough money – yet.” One day, somebody will. And I’m sure it will be totally classy. Bill will let us know that.
Today’s load of bull comes, appropriately enough, from DeLoss Dodds, as Texas considers selling beer and liquor at football games:
The thing I will say is that it’s not a money thing. If we did do it, people would say that they they’re just doing it for the money. It’s not a money issue. It’s a do-the-right-thing issue.
Yeah, sure. That’s why you’ll be giving drinks away.
By the way, what’s the over/under on the year booze comes to Sanford Stadium (outside of the luxury boxes, that is)? You’ve got the money angle and the give the people more of what they get at home angle. Plus, it’ll generate more, um… opportunities for Jimmy Williamson’s boys. That’s a win-win-win in my book.
Big 12 commissioner attributes conference’s decision to back off holding a championship game to ratings/attendance concerns over other conferences’ championship games rather than acknowledging the stupidity of such a game for a conference with a round robin regular season schedule.
Jim Delany, December 8, 2011:
Delany then launched into an explanation of why a playoff would be bad. He brought up potential risk of injury (which no one cared about when schools approved a 12th regular-season game for all FBS schools), potential devaluation of the regular season (wouldn’t happen) and his league’s longstanding love affair with the Rose Bowl (a perfectly legitimate issue). He then described the plus-one — the four-team playoff that has received increased support since the all-SEC BCS title game was set on Sunday — as a “slippery slope” that would lead to an eight- or 16-team playoff. On that point, he is 100 percent correct. In the end, Delany could think of only one good reason for a playoff. “The only strong argument you can make for it is financial,” Delany said. “I don’t think the other arguments for it are very strong.”
Fast forward to yesterday.
“The commissioners and presidents wanted to go long because they wanted to stop further speculation about eight teams and 16 teams,” Skipper said. “They put a stake in the ground that, for 12 years, it’s going to be the same. I don’t think there’s any contemplation that there will be any change to that.”
Hancock: “They’re [commissioners] committed, and the presidents are too,” Hancock said Monday morning at the annual Football Writers Association of America breakfast. “I tell you on Jan. 7, 2013 I don’t see anything that would change.”
What’s that coming from Mike Slive’s mouth? Why, it’s total bullshit.
Q: Should we be worried that with realignment, conferences might be losing their cultural identity or diluting their brand?
A: I’m not sure ‘worried’ is the word I would use. In the context of changing times, change is hard. And I don’t want to speak for any particular conference and its needs, but I do think we have a responsibility to think about the game as a whole. I’ve thought that during the discussions on the BCS, that each of us brought to the table in those discussions the need to advocate for what’s in the best interest of our respective conference, but never to lose sight of the fact that in some ways we were handed the stewardship of college football. We didn’t ask for it, but it became (ours). So to that extent we have a responsibility to the game.
So in answer to your question, I hope within the context of individual conferences and their respective needs, that we can all keep the question of what’s good for college football long-term at the forefront of our thinking and act in accordance with that, as well as in accordance with our own individual needs.
Q: But has some of that already happened?
A: I can’t speak to anybody else. We’ve expanded, too, and people can be critical of the fact that some great rivalries have been lost as a result of that. So I’m speaking from being maybe one of the folks that has been criticized for that. But I still think we all have an obligation to maintain our dual responsibility.
There isn’t a single thing in college football today that doesn’t have a price tag attached to it. For Slive to act otherwise, or to pretend that the SEC is somehow righteously above the fray, even if it’s just to a degree, is utter nonsense. The only way he’ll ever care about his conference losing its cultural identity is if that turns fans off from paying as much money for his product. And by then, it’ll be too late.
This is just all made up and flagellant.
“The days of anybody really just rolling over someone is more and more difficult than it ever has been,” said Urban Meyer, who makes his debut as Ohio State’s 24th head coach today against Miami (Ohio). “Because there is parity in college football.”
Right. That’s why there’s exactly one team in the preseason top 25 that isn’t in a major conference. And that team lost last night to a Big Ten school.