Daily Archives: January 6, 2012

… so it must be true.

My friends, even Craig James is not immune from the awesome power of the Intertubes (h/t MaconDawg):

Anyway. James has taken to the Twitter and Facebook to more or less address the fact he in no way killed five hookers while he was at SMU. Well, he sort of touches on it, actually, linking to this piece posted yesterday about how James is the victim of a “Google Bomb.” Tweets James, or whoever it is he pays to do his tweeting: “They’re a headache, but they won’t slow down this campaign.”

The next time somebody tells you that what appears in a message thread can’t affect recruiting, just nod, smile knowingly and say “that’s what Craig James thought, too.”


Filed under Political Wankery, The Blogosphere

Free Willie!

Just throwing this out there… well, because I can:


Filed under Georgia Football

Of course, Hutson Mason would have notched a 201.16.

No doubt some of you are prepared to go all Ezekiel 25:17 on me for having the temerity to suggest what I’m about to in this post, but so be it.

This post of Chris Brown’s caught my eye.  Particularly this chart:

Translated into passer rating, that works out as follows for the three quarterbacks:  Keenum, 144.33; Weeden, 167.66; Smith, 201.15.

Keenum’s performance came against the 17th best pass defense in the country.  Weeden faced the 95th ranked pass defense and Smith worked his magic against Clemson’s #50.

Against Michigan State’s 11th ranked pass defense, here’s what Aaron Murray managed in comparison:  20 completions on 32 attempts, 288 yards, 9.0 yards per attempt, 2 TDs and 2 INTs.  Passer rating:  146.23.

My point here isn’t to argue that Murray had a better game than the three (although it’s certainly on the same level as Keenum’s).  Instead, it’s to observe that in the context of a comparison with three quarterbacks who have more college experience, who operate in pass-oriented offenses and who faced weaker defenses, Murray’s numbers don’t look that out of place.

Murray’s shortcoming in that comparison, one we’ve seen throughout the season, is turnovers.  It’s something he’s got to get under control if he’s to become an elite quarterback.  With a better supporting cast on the offensive line (a big if, admittedly) and a running game that can support play action, there’s no reason that can’t happen next season.  I’d certainly argue it’s a more realistic option for Georgia than throwing an unproven quarterback against the wall in the blind hope that something might stick.


Filed under Georgia Football, Stats Geek!

Friday morning buffet

Fill up before The Rematch.


Filed under Auburn's Cast of Thousands, Because Nothing Sucks Like A Big Orange, ESPN Is The Devil, Georgia Football, Georgia Tech Football, Strategery And Mechanics

Mike Slive vs. Mark Shurtleff

Mark Shurtleff says he’s inching ever closer to filing his antitrust suit against the BCS, although in claiming that “the snub of Boise State in this season’s bowl games gives additional fodder to the impending lawsuit”, he appears to be deaf to the irony of Boise State becoming one of the haves soon.

Anyway, the part of this that bears watching is on the proving damages and remedy end.

… Hancock said before the BCS, teams from outside those top conferences have cracked into one of the elite bowl games only five times in 54 years.

Since the BCS was created, seven teams have played in those games in eight years.

“Think about that,” he said. “Five times in 54 years versus seven times in eight years.”

That argument may pose the biggest challenge to any lawsuit that Shurtleff ends up filing, according to Michael McCann, director of the Sports Law Institute at the Vermont Law School.

“Before there was a BCS, there was no playoff system, so it’s not clear there would be one after,” he said. “That helps it in court, because they can argue that, on balance, it promotes competition because it provides a system that didn’t exist before.”

The court may be reluctant to determine there is a legal right to a college football playoff and decide that it is unwilling or unable to undo any harm done by the system.

Particularly if Mike Slive’s “meaningful discussion” about the BCS leads his peers to adopt a plus-one playoff format.  (Although the Devil and Delany are in the details.)

Even Shurtleff seems to sense that something may be in the wind that could slow him down.

… The time frame for the litigation could change, Shurtleff said, if the BCS makes “major” changes to its selection criteria when its board meets later this month.

There’s no way they’re moving that fast.  But it’ll be a dynamic worth watching play out.  My bet is that if the BCS folks do eventually agree to move to a plus-one, that, in addition to the conference realignment that’s resulted in the cream of the mid-majors being scooped up by the Big 6, will result in Shurtleff declaring victory and moving on.  That’s the boring result.  Things will be much more interesting if Jim Delany has his way.

Comments Off on Mike Slive vs. Mark Shurtleff

Filed under BCS/Playoffs, Political Wankery