Daily Archives: March 30, 2012

That nine-game conference schedule ain’t so tough after all.

Take note, Mike Slive and the rest of you SEC wussies.


Filed under ACC Football

Not exactly Wayne’s World

Okay, it’s not on spring break – hell, it’s not even in America – but there’s something about a drunk dude in the back of a police car belting out “Bohemian Rhapsody”…

Now that’s some funny shit. [h/t Balloon Juice]



Filed under Crime and Punishment

What’s in a name?

I’m sorry, but, if true, this is one of the more ludicrous proposals I’ve seen.

… Two sources confirmed that the idea has been floated of a limited liability company created by the NCAA that could “house” the playoff. The NCAA wouldn’t directly control it or even the money generated by it. The revenue generated could be housed in such an LLC. The BCS currently shares money all the way down to the I-AA level.

Yes, you read that correctly.  Somebody thinks it would be a good idea for the NCAA to lend its name to whatever new postseason format the BCS suits come up with for  – I can barely bring myself to type this – credibility.

You only get one guess as to whom.

“The NCAA brand in championships is very powerful,” Emmert said here Thursday at the Final Four. “Witness what’s going on here right now. It depends on the model they come up with …

“The issues that presidents voice is making sure that the BCS doesn’t get tied up in some of the byzantine politics of the NCAA…”

Ho, ho, ho.  I suppose if by “byzantine politics” Emmert means fashioning a way to keep mid-major schools’ grubby paws off money that Slive and Delany see as rightfully theirs, he may have a point.  But, seriously, are there a bunch of folks sitting around saying, “sorry, but I can’t embrace any D-1 football playoff unless it has the NCAA’s name on it”?  Would branding the trophy with those four little letters mean things are even more settled on the field than ever?  Hardly.

So, assuming there’s anything to this story (and by the way, Dodd, according to your colleague, playoff plans haven’t exactly crystallized yet), what’s in it for both sides?  I can’t see where the commissioners and presidents would be interested in pursuing it because Mark Emmert is such an articulate spokesman for their product, but I can think of one thing that might move both sides to make some sort of branding deal.

It’s about money, of course.  If you’re Jim Delany, you’re passionately opposed to spreading wealth that your conference has worked hard to create in the market with conferences and schools that simply haven’t or can’t.  And you have to realize that slapping an NCAA label on a D-1 playoff runs a risk of letting the camel’s nose under the tent by those institutions you’ve worked so hard to exclude from the truly big money.

Unless there’s radical surgery first.

“The diversity of institutions in Division I has grown, the relative diversity of their economic bases has grown, so it’s been increasingly difficult to create rules that fit everybody and everybody’s happy with and get a consensus around those things,” Emmert said Thursday. “So we’re going to spend some time this summer and in the fall looking at what would the membership like to do, how would they like to grapple with this governance challenge and still hold together the big Division I tent.”

I suspect that Jim Delany’s idea of how to deal with “relative diversity” (nice phrase, that) and Craig Thompson’s differ rather dramatically.  Who’s in a better position to make Mark Emmert see things his way?  Let’s just say I don’t find Gordon Schnell’s question that hard to answer.

“What are they [NCAA] going to get for [putting their name on a playoff]?,” said Gordon Schnell, a noted anti-trust attorney with Constantine Cannon in New York. “The NCAA has a lot to answer for in other areas when it comes to equity. I’d be surprised if they got into the BCS storm without it being financially worth wile [sic]. Do I think it would be better for the BCS? Maybe.”

The NCAA gets a check and the BCS gets separation from grasping hands.  That’s a win-win as far as they’re all concerned.  There’s no maybe about it.  We’re not going to care, of course.  But that was never the point anyway.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, It's Just Bidness, The NCAA

One last thought on Browniegate

Whatever you might think about Rambo’s high school coach’s story about what led to Rambo’s suspension last year and what may be coming down the turnpike shortly, he’s put his finger on another part of the story that isn’t getting much attention – yet, anyway.

“To me, and I’m not condoning anything anybody has done. But I think it was a stupid thing to do to test college athletes the week after spring break. Unless they want to catch something. I doubt if there’s many universities out there that are testing their athletes the week after spring break.”

I doubt it, too.  (In fact, I wonder if Georgia tests many of its other student-athletes the week after spring break.)

Maybe it’s a slight stretch, but I suspect when all is said and done we’ll be able to divide Dawgnation into two camps here:  those who approve it as a deliberate strategy to ride herd on the kids and those who think, deliberate or not, it’s a really stupid thing to do, especially given the school’s tough substance abuse policy.

Which means – time for a reader poll!


Filed under Georgia Football