Daily Archives: February 7, 2013

Big Ten recruiting will forever be in the mind of Urban Meyer.

Corch is your asshat now, Big Ten.  Enjoy.


Filed under Urban Meyer Points and Stares

If the LOI doesn’t fit, you must acquit.

Alex Collins’ mom continues her one woman (and now, one lawyer) campaign to be named Recruiting Mother of the Year.


Filed under Recruiting

The Apocalypse begins.

Fresh off the disappointment of signing the worst 10th ranked class in the history of college football, Georgia fans are now rocked by the possibility that a coordinator has career ambitions.

Unleash the hounds.

Tell me, those of you who have regularly knocked the staff because no other programs have been interested in Richt’s assistant coaches, does this raise their standing in your eyes?

Seriously, the man’s got a contract that lets him leave for a coordinator job in the NFL without paying a buyout and we’re supposed to be surprised when he’s interested in entertaining a suitor?

The only thing that should matter to us is whether Grantham or Richt lied to recruits.  In the absence of that, more power to the man.


UPDATE:  Groo makes the case that Grantham is preparing his 2014 job prospects.



Filed under Georgia Football

34 degrees of separation

Blogging definitely has its rewards.  One neat thing about GTP is that over the years it’s managed to put me in touch with all sorts of folks who have a connection with the football program.  But I’d have to say that this story from one of my best friends, a fellow law school grad with whom I’ve shared season tickets for three decades, is the topper:

Last night I went to a UGA Business School function in which Herschel spoke for about 45 minutes and took 30 minutes of questions.  Overall a great night.  Before he spoke, we were able to stand in line and talk to him briefly.  Then a picture was taken.  I’m standing in line for a little while trying to figure out what to say to Herschel.  I decided to say something to see his response.  When I got to him, I shook hands and welcomed him to DC.  I told him I was still a season ticket holder and that my tickets were on the 34-yard line.  Then I said that I had tickets with the Georgia blogger Senator Blutarsky.  He smiled and said, “Really.”  I said yes then asked if he knew about the Senator.  Herschel said “I sure do!  That’s something.”

Herschel thinks it’s something?  You remember as a kid if you met somebody famous, shook their hand and then swore you wouldn’t wash your hand that did the shaking?  I’m trying to figure out what the virtual equivalent of that is.


UPDATE:  Here’s a link to some pics from the event, if you’re interested.


Filed under Georgia Football, GTP Stuff

The NCAA explores the possibility that you can be a little pregnant.

Charlie Pierce, in this piece about recent developments in the O’Bannon case, nails the slippery slope the NCAA is on when it comes to player pay.

First, Mark Emmert, the president of the NCAA, announced new rules for the recruitment of college athletes. One of the new guidelines stipulates that athletes can receive $300 per year beyond their normal expenses to attend non-scholastic events. This is a modified version of the “stipend” that long has been the compromise position between the egregious status quo and a more equitable sharing of revenues between the various universities and the uncompensated labor force that does all the real work. It is also nonsense. Once you let athletes have money simply because they are athletes, no matter how little it is and no matter what you call it, you’re into pay-for-play and that’s the ballgame. Not even the NCAA, which has a gift for obfuscation that rivals Richard Nixon’s on a good day, can argue seriously that paying an athlete $300 is ethical, but that paying him or her $500 or $1,000 — or $10,000, for all that — is not.

Well, “seriously” is one of those words we can all endlessly debate, but I do think the NCAA firmly believes there’s a logic to what it’s doing, even if we outsiders can’t figure out what that is.  The problem is that I also think that Emmert and his constituents are about as smart as baseball owners were confronting the possibility that the infamous reserve clause would inevitably crumble, an analogy that Pierce cites in his article.  And it’s likely to work out about as well for them.


Filed under The NCAA

Under the radar

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m surprised that one aspect of South Carolina’s recruiting class has gotten little attention:  out of 21 total signees, only four are from South Carolina.  It’s not a bad class by any means, but it lacks that overpowering in state recruit that Spurrier has gotten his hands in two of the last few classes, much to the benefit of the program.  It makes me wonder if this says anything significant about the local talent pool or if perhaps we’re seeing the first signs of kids reacting to the prospect of the head man’s coaching mortality.

It’s too early to say anything definitive, of course, but it’s worth keeping an eye out to see if this develops into a trend.


Filed under 'Cock Envy, Recruiting

“Nothing against Rivals or Scout, but I’d prefer to go with my own rankings.”

As Mark Bradley gently points out, Georgia Tech just signed its weakest class of the Paul Johnson era, which is saying a lot, if you think about it:

According to Rivals, the average star ranking for Tech signees in Johnson’s first five classes was 2.93. The average star ranking of this class was 2.71. Only in 2008, Johnson’s first season here, has one of his Tech signing classes ranked lower according to the star system, and this is by far his lowest-rated class overall. (Rivals rated previous Johnson classes 49th, 49th, 43rd, 43rd, 41st and 56th.)

Which is all good, because he’s a genius and all.

At this late date, though, it’s possible to wonder if Tech recruiting is simply what it is and what it will remain – not so great as to dazzle, not so horrible as to make the Jackets an ACC afterthought. Only one of Tech’s past 12 classes –the spans the entire Chan Gailey era — has ranked higher than 40th according to Rivals, but only once in that span has Tech finished below .500.

Johnson refuses to accept that, it seems, because he’s decided to “tweak” Tech’s recruiting focus.

Earlier in the day, Johnson revealed that Tech is tweaking the way it approaches recruiting, which isn’t a bad idea. It’s going to broaden its geographic scope – Johnson mentioned the Cincinnati area, which might play well with incoming Tech athletic director Mike Bobinski, who currently resides there – and target more out-of-state Catholic schools.

Why turn your back on your home ground, one of the most talent rich states in the country?  After all, Vanderbilt, possessed of a similar academic repute to Tech’s, came in and signed as many Georgia kids this year as Johnson did.  So what’s the problem?


… Johnson said coaches have talked about targeting private schools outside of the state, possibly venturing into Cincinnati and Nashville. First, Johnson said, Tech’s reputation holds up well outside of the state and seems to do better the farther one gets from Georgia.  [Emphasis added.]

Feel free to insert your defensive tackle from East Asia joke here.

Seriously, if you’re a head coach in the South, why wouldn’t you be investing some serious time in Georgia recruiting when the state’s ACC program is basically abdicating its role as a landing spot for in state high schoolers?


Filed under Georgia Tech Football, Recruiting