The Tereshinski presser on Tereshinski pressure

Obviously, we can file this in the temporary talk-is-cheap file until we see some results on the field, but it doesn’t sound like Joe Tereshinski’s clueless about what needs to be done on his end of things.

“Georgia used to be known that in the fourth quarter, they won,” Tereshinski said. “We’re going to press and challenge these kids every day to overcome. They’re going to have to overcome.”

There’s a lot to unpack from his comments.  (I’m particularly curious about the position coaches “who have called me to support this decision.”)

Emerson’s right that while it all sounds wonderful, an ounce of skepticism is warranted until we see results.  But I’m curious to hear from those of you who are furious about the decision:  did Tereshinski hit the target here?  Would you feel better if someone from outside the program was hired and said the same things?

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

UPDATE: MaconDawg hits on the big picture issue here.

Advertisement

You can’t always get what you want.

I have to confess that of all the things I might expect to stir up a shitstorm, reshuffling the S&C staff would rank pretty low on my list.  Shows what I know about Dawgnation.  Maybe they should introduce the entire staff before the G-Day game to give disgruntled fans a chance to vent their frustration.

A lot of this seems to be drawn from the same anger that fuels calls for Richt to be replaced with the likes of Muschamp or Smart, writ small.  Very little of the criticism that I’ve read here or elsewhere deals with specific flaws in the strength and conditioning program which need to be addressed and why this coach would fail or why that one would succeed at remedying those.  And before you go there, bitching about the symptoms (“I’m tired of seeing our offensive line/defensive line get pushed around!”) isn’t the same thing as identifying the disease and finding the cure.

I get that in the wake of a disappointing 6-6 season change for change’s sake is a tempting state of mind to occupy.  But it’s all going to come out in the wash after next season anyway, isn’t it?  If Coach Tereshinski and whatever assistants are brought in (and the latter are the real keys on how successful this move turns out to be) have an impact, then this all blows over in time.  And if Richt had gone outside the program for a new head of S&C, who’s to say how much would change in a year’s time?  (Ironic that many of those critical of Richt’s recent hiring decision to go outside the program for Grantham seem to think that this one would automatically go better.)

For those of you who think this was at best a path-of-least-resistance kind of decision and at worst an incredibly stupid move on the part of the head coach, remember that Richt and Van Halanger are about as close as it gets (even closer than Richt and Martinez were).  So, for Van Halanger to say this…

“My goal is to be a strength coach,” Van Halanger said. “I’m a good strength coach. I want to be a strength coach again sometime. I will work tremendously hard at whatever I need to do. I love working with kids. I love working with the kids at Georgia.”

The news comes five days after Georgia finished a 6-6 regular season.

Van Halanger said he still needs to talk to Richt about whether he will continue as strength coach through the bowl game.

“I understand him and he understands that I’m going to do everything I can to help,” Van Halanger said. “Mark wanted to make a change. I’m going to be assigned to other duties and I’m going to work very hard at it.”

… tells me that a change was something Richt was contemplating for a while and that at some point he had become as dissatisfied with the results he was getting on the S&C front as most of the rest of us are.  And that Van Halanger was resisting it.  None of which is to say that Tereshinski is a lock to succeed.  But it doesn’t sound like there was anything easy or thoughtless about the decision to remove Van Halanger.

Assault with a deadly cowbell

This guy probably wasn’t satisfied with the cowbell compromise, either.  (h/t The Wiz of Odds)

And just like that, nobody remembered Kyle Brotzman.

I guess it makes complete sense in a game where a punter had a punt go for zero yards that a team would lose by having one extra point blocked to send things into overtime and then have a second one blocked as the clincher in the second OT period.

And Arizona State wants a bowl waiver after that.  Good Lord.

Bill McCartney is a selfless man.

I think this qualifies as one of those “damn, son, I don’t think I would have said that” moments.

… McCartney was a candidate to replace Dan Hawkins, who was fired last month, but said his plan all along, had he been named coach, was to hire Embree and Bieniemy as assistants and groom one of them to take over as the head coach in two or three years. When it became clear he would not get the head coaching position, McCartney said he pushed for one of them to get the job, and hire the other coach as a top assistant.

“It was never about me doing it again,” McCartney said. “It was about setting the table for a black man to come in (as head coach). And he (athletic director Mike Bohn) hired one. Now, give him a chance.”

I’m not sure if he means Embree or Bohn there, but you get the point.  That may be the most non-politically correct expression of political correctness I’ve ever read.  And if the move doesn’t work out, you can already hear the criticism that will be directed at the AD for the hire.  (Not to mention that he’s devalued Embree with the comment.)  I’m sure he’s grateful for the attention.

It’s money that they love.

Year2’s takedown of Jim Harbaugh’s BCS complaint is pitch perfect.

And I thought you had to be smarter than that to coach at Stanford.

Loopholed.

The more the NCAA talks about Camgate, the more confused I get.  Here’s what President Mark Emmert had to say in his extraordinary defense of the decision to declare the player eligible:

“We recognize that many people are outraged at the notion that a parent or anyone else could ‘shop around’ a student-athlete and there would possibly not be repercussions on the student-athlete’s eligibility,” Emmert said in a statement.

“I’m committed to further clarifying and strengthening our recruiting and amateurism rules so they promote appropriate behavior by students, parents, coaches and third parties. We will work aggressively with our members to amend our bylaws so that this type of behavior is not a part of intercollegiate athletics.”

What I get from that is there are no repercussions for Cecil Newton’s behavior, but that there should be.  Yet here’s this comment from a lower-level official:

… Kevin Lennon, the NCAA’s vice president for academic and membership affairs, said there have been numerous cases resulting in the same type of ruling: a restoration of eligibility after a school declares a player ineligible following a rules violation.

“We did find a violation of our bylaws, and I wouldn’t want that to be lost,” Lennon said. “The reinstatement of a student-athlete begins with his or her culpability and other mitigating factors are looked at: Were benefits actually received, and what was the nature of the benefits?”

It’s nice that he doesn’t want the message that there was a finding of a violation to be lost, even though that’s the exact result of his organization’s ruling in the matter.  The whole idea that we’re supposed to accept Emmert’s hand wringing at face value is what’s at the heart of the criticism the NCAA faces.  If Emmert thinks the amateurism rules need strengthening, whose fault is that?

There are two things I don’t understand here.  First, if the SEC and the NCAA couldn’t satisfactorily resolve the inherent conflict they faced trying to find an appropriate punishment regarding Cecil Newton that didn’t affect his son or Auburn, what makes them think they’ll be able to draft something going forward that will be more effective?  Neither of them has any authority over friends or family members and if they don’t want to penalize the parties over whom they do have authority when “culpability and other mitigating factors are looked at”, what’s the point of coming up with any new bylaws?

But here’s the thing I really don’t get:  somehow, I’m supposed to believe that Cecil Newton is smart enough to game the system to confound two of the shrewder groups of people on the planet, but not smart enough to profit from it.  Does that makes sense to anyone not named Mark Emmert or Mike Slive?

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

UPDATE: You know it’s a sketchy call when Jim Delany comes off sounding like the voice of reason.