Tater Tot reminisces…

about Uga V’s attempted meeting with Robert Baker’s crotch – and can’t even tell the damned story right.

… The 1996 Auburn-Georgia game, the 100th in the series, became a battle for the history books. Rallying from a 21-point first-half deficit, Georgia won 56-49 in four OTs and for quite some time it remained the longest in NCAA history. It was one of the toughest losses of my entire career.

I will never forget, on the final play of the first quarter, I called a pass play to Baker in the back of the end zone and he made a leaping catch to put us ahead 14-7. But, before he had a chance to celebrate, UGA V leaped forward, perched on his hind legs and attempted to take a chunk out of Robert Baker’s kneecap.

Actually, Baker got the chance to celebrate by taunting the dog with the football.  Briefly.

And the only reason Bowden thinks that Baker’s kneecap was at risk is because Baker had elevated Uga V’s target away from the dog’s lunge.

Good story other than that…

It’s why they invented home theater.

Just shoot me now if this policy ever gets adopted at Sanford Stadium.

Glass houses… stones.

Paul takes a look at SMQ’s Georgia Tech preview and uses it as a stepping stone to judge expectations for Tech’s ’08 campaign.

I can’t say for sure how the team will do this season, but I think it’s a safe bet based on this story that the denizens of the Yellow Jacket message boards will lead the ACC in hypocrisy.

Just say yes.

I don’t know about you, but this leaves me a little uneasy:

… At its most recent meetings in Destin, Fla., the SEC apparently relaxed its rules concerning non-qualifiers. I was in Destin but missed that development, as did most of the other reporters there, none of whom (at least as far as I have seen in extensive on-line searching) mentioned it at the time. It’s only been referenced in stories about Powe. But here is what Ole Miss athletics director Pete Boone had to say about the change.

‘Basically, the SEC’s initial eligibility rules will generally mirror the NCAA’s, which allow some non-qualifiers to attend school and try to get their grades up before competing,’ Boone told the Clarion-Ledger. ‘The one caveat is that any non-qualifier still has to be approved by the (SEC) commissioner.’

Now, as large as Jerrell Powe is, let’s set him aside for a moment. This is big news. It is a huge change in the way the conference approaches this issue. In the past, the SEC — unlike other leagues — didn’t allow non-qualifiers on campus at all, at least as prospective athletes. A non-qualifier either had to get qualified in prep school or graduate from junior college. Otherwise, they didn’t get on the field, ever.

Perhaps this new rule could be called ‘Saban Rule II.’ You might remember the mini-controversy that some people attempted to stir last fall when Saban, in response to a direct question about the University of South Florida, raised just this point. (I know it is hard to keep up with all the media-generated Saban mini-controversies.) The Alabama coach correctly referred to the differences in what a Big East school could do and what an SEC school could do, and this is exactly the difference he was talking about.

Talk about your slippery slopes.  Mike Slive has to approve these recruits?  What do you think the odds are that he says yes to one school and no to another?  And if he were to do something like that, what sort of uproar do you think that would generate?

(h/t MrSEC.com)

The APR and raised eyebrows

I questioned the “little guys are getting it stuck to them again” criticism of the APR at the time the last report came out, but felt that there were some valid issues raised about implementation of the policy.

… That’s not to say that there aren’t abuses of the system. Hall is right when he criticizes the ease with which waivers are granted to certain programs. To an extent, Tomey’s argument that his program got screwed for honoring the lax academic standards of his predecessor isn’t without some merit. But it’s hard to say that’s a valid defense. It’s just that other schools shouldn’t be allowed to get away with what is most likely similar past bad behavior.

Now comes USA Today with some further evidence that sanctions aren’t being evenly distributed between the BCS conferences and the mid-majors.  For example,

… The Pac-10, for example, saw only three of 14 subpar teams sanctioned (21%) while the neighboring Western Athletic saw 23 of 34 (68%) and the Mountain West 10 of 15 (67%).

The SEC saw only five of 20 low-APR teams sanctioned (25%). The Sun Belt, with roughly the same geographic footprint, saw 16 of 46 (35%).

Now stats are fine in the abstract, but it would be useful to know more about the specifics.  As the article notes,

… The bigger-budget schools are more capable of beefing up academic support programs and taking other supportive measures such as covering summer school costs for incoming athletes and reducing missed class time by flying rather than busing to games.

And that may very well be the case in many circumstances.  Remember that Dick Tomey admitted his school didn’t even have an academic support program in place until three years ago.  But you wonder if there’s something else going on here.  Unfortunately, the article doesn’t give us any indication if that’s the case.  It would certainly make for an interesting follow up.

In the meantime, scratch your head over a factoid like this…

Both opponents in last season’s Motor City Bowl, Purdue and Central Michigan, posted football APRs beneath the NCAA’s 925 cutoff. Purdue had a 920 but wasn’t penalized. Central had a 922 and lost two scholarships…

and wonder if the players are benefiting from the new academic order.  Which, after all, is the whole point to the exercise.

***************************************************************

UPDATE: As usual, Sunday Morning Quarterback adds some cogent thoughts on this topic here.

Denial

After you read this post at Capstone Report, ask yourself the following questions:

1. Is there anything you can’t blame the NCAA for in the world of college athletics?
2. Prior to 1991, what was going on at all of those schools that didn’t have athletic dorms?
3. After 1991, how many schools forced to abolish athletic dorms saw a rash of criminal activity on the level of what was just discovered with Jimmy Johns?
4. Why are student-athletes less prepared to deal with “the freedom of college life” than the typical student?
5. If exposing student-athletes to the general student population is a bad thing, since it leads to more “general” behavior, how do coaches and athletic departments prepare their athletes for life after college, when there presumably won’t be any athletic dorms to reside in?  Or is that something that’s not their responsibility?

Related story here. (h/t The Wizard of Odds)

More Steele goodies

Phil Steele has added something useful at his site.  When you click to his 2008 schedules section, select a conference and then click on a specific matchup, you’ll find he’s provided the last eleven years worth of team stats from the meetings between those two schools.  There’s plenty to chew over.

For example, notice that last year’s Georgia-South Carolina game saw the Dawgs attempt more passes than in any other game during that eleven year period.

Good stuff.