After yesterday’s bad news, I could sure use a chuckle, so thanks for this, Coach:
Matthews came in looking like “he was ready to play,” Richt said. “He had a plan of showing up and winning a job. He didn’t come here to try to be everybody’s friend, he didn’t come here and try to meet all the ladies. I’m not saying he’s not meeting the ladies, but he was really truly focused on wanting to come in and winning a starting position.”
Just remember, Tray, women weaken legs.
Filed under Georgia Football
We’re being promised quality product on the SEC Network. The question is, if they’re sincere about that, how do they deliver it? You can probably guess the answer:
The key for getting good games on the network: Balanced scheduling. One source said the league plans to avoid stacking games – in other words, four marquee football games one week, only one or two the next. Spreading the wealth over a 14-week will be imperative.
Naturally, a nine-game league football schedule could help with this. And maybe the SEC will go that route eventually.
If you don’t think ESPN and CBS are pounding Slive on close to a daily basis about this, you’re dreaming. I still think this is coming down to a math issue for the conference ADs: TV revenue versus loss of revenue from a seventh home game. But if the projection of $28 million per team turns out to be accurate, there’s plenty coming in to make up for the ticket revenue loss.
Filed under ESPN Is The Devil, SEC Football
Seth Emerson posted his thoughts on the post-spring depth chart for Georgia’s defense yesterday. It’s natural to expect the starting situation to be more unsettled than that of the offense, but it turns out not to be the case so much.
Take a look at who’s expected to line up in the base defense, for starters:
That’s a total of eight. Bailey and Drew are duking it out for the other DE starting job, Wilson is fighting to hold off Carter at ILB and Dawson was on his way to winning the cornerback spot opposite Swann until his injury setback. That’s remarkably stable, given all the talk we’ve heard about having to rebuild the defense after everyone left for the NFL.
And when Grantham goes nickel, Harvey-Clemons stays on the field. DeLoach comes off and another safety comes on. That’s where it looks like the other big battle will be waged in the fall.
Now that says nothing about filling out the two-deep, where there are bound to be some significant changes come August. But if you think there’s quality talent, you should be a little optimistic about how the defensive starting picture is coming into focus.
Filed under Georgia Football
The line is open, so grab a plate.
Two things about this report that Oregon and the NCAA are in agreement that the Ducks have committed a bunch of major violations. First, the obvious: no wonder Chip Kelly was ready to take his act to the NFL.
Finding 6 – Did the school promote an atmosphere of compliance?
This section is difficult to decipher because of redactions, but centers on an NCAA bylaw that says the head coach much promote an “atmosphere of compliance.”
In the report, the school and NCAA agree a violation happened, although the NCAA cautions that the report does not include a finding that [redacted] failed “to promote an atmosphere of compliance.” It does not state if that person is Chip Kelly.
Hmm… maybe there was a Coach Redacted on the Oregon staff.
Second, the surprising. Somehow the NCAA has managed to look at a program that (1) let Will Lyles run amok with recruits; (2) paid money to Lyles for services that were questionable; (3) allowed somebody to make hundreds of impermissible phone calls over a four-year period; (4) exceeded the limit on the number of coaches allowed to recruit, again over a multi-year period; (5) was essentially left to do as it pleased with regard to “…the use of recruiting and scouting services, giving out school apparel and telephone calls between high school athletes and coaches” and reached this rather startling conclusion:
“There were underlying major violations coupled with failure to monitor violations involving the head coach (2009 through 2011) and the athletics department (2008-2011),” NCAA enforcement staff wrote in the report. “While the violations were not intentional in nature, coaches and administrators of a sports program at an NCAA member institution have an obligation to ensure that the activities being engaged in comply with NCAA legislation.”
The report also outlines two crucial points for the Ducks. First, NCAA enforcement staff said they had “no finding of lack of institutional control and no finding of unethical conduct.”
Can anybody explain how the first sentence and the last sentence there have any logical consistency? Or should I just skip straight to conspiracy theory and wonder if the NCAA is being deferential to Nike?
Filed under Pac-12 Football, The NCAA
Get The Picture 