Big XII Follies

The rumor mill is going strong on the Big XII’s fate.

ESPN is reporting that – and somehow you knew this was inevitable – Texas legislators are maneuvering to replace Colorado with Baylor in the event the Pac-10 cherry picks.

“If you’re going to have an exported commodity involved in this, do you think we’re going to allow a school from outside the state of Texas to replace one of our schools in the Big 12 South? I don’t think so. We’re already at work on this,” the site quoted a a high-ranking member of the Texas Legislature as saying.

Meanwhile, the current Big XII membership isn’t asleep at this switch.  It’s supposedly delivered an ultimatum to at least one of its schools.

The conference, amid a chorus of story lines that would all significantly change the face of big-league college sports, has imposed a deadline of Friday for Nebraska and Missouri to state their intentions on whether they intend to bolt for the Big Ten, with the possibility of an extension for a decision by next Tuesday, The Austin American-Statesman has reported, citing two sources.

The Big 12’s university presidents decided on imposing the ultimatum, two highly placed officials within two of the conference schools said, according to the newspaper.

“Nebraska has until 5 p.m. on Friday to tell us what they’re going to do,” one school official said, according to the The American-Statesman. “The same deal for Missouri. They have to tell us they’re not going to the Big Ten.”

A Dallas Morning News report also cited a deadline for the Cornhuskers but said it was within two weeks.

If it’s true that the University of Texas’ preference is to keep the Big XII intact the way it is, you’ve got to admire the way it’s playing both sides off against the middle here.  It looks like the big question now is whether Nebraska gets that Big Ten offer soon enough.

Advertisements

Sacks and interceptions, oh my!

The Mathlete’s latest post is about interceptions and sacks – more specifically,

… how does a viable pass rush or a ball-hawking secondary affect the performance of the opposing offense on plays where there isn’t a sack or a pick.  Likewise, what is the correlation between an offensive line that gives up sacks regularly or a mistake prone quarterback?

His findings will both surprise and not surprise you.

Not surprising, in that defenses that generate sacks and picks are better defenses for it, even on downs where neither occurs.  Interestingly, he finds that sacks are more valuable than interceptions.

On offense, though, those items don’t matter as much.  As somebody who sat through the second-half debacle of last year’s Kentucky game, it’s kind of hard to wrap my brain around this statement, but there it is:

… Interceptions and sacks will always be bad plays for an offense, but their rate of incidence is not strongly correlated to performance on other downs.  In fact, if given the choice between a quarterback who threw a lot of picks the prior year but was generally successful otherwise and a quarterback who was very safe but not all that productive, my guess is you will be better of going for the quarterback with the picks.

Envy and jealousy: life in the Classic City

This story has absolutely nothing to do with college football, other than that it took place in Athens this past week, but there’s such a great line in the comment thread that I can’t help but share.

Basically, it’s the kind of stuff we’re going to see more and more in Georgia as a result of the state legislature allowing people to carry guns into bars or to premises where liquor is served… I mean, what could go wrong, right?

A Jefferson woman shot at a man who she said made vulgar comments to her Wednesday as they dined separately at a Westside restaurant, Athens-Clarke police said…

The woman threatened to shoot him with a gun that was in her car, according to police. As she went to her car, the 62-year-old customer got in his car and drove away, but the woman fired a .38-caliber revolver, striking his car twice, police said.

From the comments, it sounds like alcohol was involved, which isn’t exactly a surprise.

Anyway, this captures my whole thought on the matter beautifully:

She had a license to carry, but not the permit to think.