Daily Archives: June 24, 2013

We’ll always have Colonel Reb.

Sadly, five-star recruit mocks Ole Miss for racism.

Even sadder is what passes for a rebuttal:

There is no evidence that there have been any KKK rallies on the school’s campus this year, let alone monthly.

The last known KKK rally at Ole Miss was in 2009 when KKK members protested the school’s removal of the song “From Dixie with Love” from the song list. At the time the Associated Press noted about 12 KKK members protested, while as many as 250 people protested the KKK’s presence.

Correction duly noted.



Filed under Recruiting

Amateurism is good for business.

Moody’s downgrades the NCAA’s credit outlook based on concerns about the O’Bannon case.

This quote is a doozy:

“The escalation of risks reflect the growing perceived disconnect between the amateurism of student-athletes, as codified by the NCAA, and the commercial success of high-profile college sports,” the agency’s report said. “Increased public discourse about the best interest of student-athletes combined with highly publicized litigation could destabilize the current intercollegiate athletic system and negatively impact the NCAA and its member universities.”

“Perceived disconnect”?  The NCAA?  Mark Emmert has no idea what Moody’s is talking about.


Filed under The NCAA

Why would anybody care about that?

Radi Nabulsi tweets that Ole Miss is recruiting the dickens out of offensive tackle Dyshon Sims.  Sims happens to be a Georgia target.  He also happens to be Josh Harvey-Clemons’ cousin.  Think they’ve talked much about JHC’s one-game suspension?  Think Ole Miss’ coaches will talk even more about it?


Filed under Georgia Football, Recruiting

Musical palate cleanser, RIP edition

With the news of Bobby “Blue” Bland’s passing, I thought I’d share my favorite song of his, “I Pity The Fool”.

The man had some serious vocal chops.  (And judging from the last time I saw him live, an ego to match.)  Rest in peace, man.


Filed under Uncategorized

When they say it’s not about the money…

You know, my original intent in posting about this USA Today interview with Bill Hancock was to note that even the BCS’ own flack won’t deny that the college football playoff isn’t going to grow past its current four-team configuration.  But then I got to the last paragraph…

“From the start, this was not about the money,” he said. “Sure there’s more money. There will be more money for everybody in the playoff. It’s a very good thing, obviously. But what this was about was doing what’s best for the game, preserving the regular season, preserving the bowl experience for all athletes in college football, not just the ones in the playoff. That was the central core of all the discussions.”

… and realized the whole piece was nothing more than a bad how-can-you-tell-when-Bill Hancock-is-lying joke.

Stay tuned a few years from now when he assures us all that the move to twelve teams is about doing what’s best for the game, too.  Bigger is always better, right?


Filed under BCS/Playoffs, Blowing Smoke

What if the “Curt Flood of major college sports” turns out to be a Dawg?

The judge in the O’Bannon case has ordered the plaintiffs to add a current college student-athlete to the litigation roster.  Andy Staples speculates that

The player who steps forward will need to be either a football or men’s basketball player. For maximum effect, he’ll need to be a starter at a school in either the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 or SEC. He’ll need to be the type of player who gets lots of screen time when ESPN or Fox or CBS shows his team’s games. Essentially, he needs to be the type of player the networks are paying to show, even though an NCAA attorney argued — with a straight face, no less — on Thursday that networks merely pay for exclusive access to the venues and not the right to film the players at work.

Whomever that player may be, he’s going to take some heat.  And he’ll be looking at facing Manziel-level media attention.

Any player who does will get ripped in the media and by fans who want to cling to the illusion that sports with billion-dollar television deals are amateur enterprises. That player will have to be strong. Coaches and athletic directors will want him to fail, because money diverted to athletes means less money for them.

So here’s this morning’s question for you:  what if that player – Staples’ “Curt Flood” – is, say, Todd Gurley?  Would it change your perception of him?  And before you answer that question, ask yourself first if this fact makes any difference:

… According to the U.S. Department of Education, the average tuition at a four-year public school cost $2,550 in 1980. By 2011, that number had jumped to $15,918. That’s more than five times the price. That’s a steep rise. Now let’s look at the growth in revenue for one of the nation’s most successful conferences. In 1980, the SEC distributed $4.1 million to its member schools. In 2013, it distributed $241.5 million. That’s more than 58 times the 1980 figure…

Oh, and one more thing.  It’s not as if the NCAA shouldn’t have seen this coming.

… Steve Mallonee, the NCAA’s managing director of membership services, sent an email to Kevin Lennon, the NCAA’s vice president for membership services. The email came after a Princeton compliance official wrote to David Berst, the NCAA’s vice president for Division I, asking how EA Sports’ NCAA Football 06 could include such accurate, identifiable information about current players. Berst asked Lennon and Mallonee for an answer. Mallonee provided it. He closed with a question of his own.

“The jersey number along with the position and vital statistics is clearly an attempt to have the public make the association with the current student-athlete,” Mallonee wrote, according to a copy of the email placed in the O’Bannon case file by the plaintiffs. “And it appears to be working. The Best Damn Sports Show was aired several weeks ago and had Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush acknowledging that they were in the video game.

“That then raises the issue of whether getting in line with technology means being more restrictive or lenient with our rules. The article would imply that we might relax our rules a bit. The biggest concern I have is that such a position really does allow for the maximum commercial exploitation of the [student-athlete] and if that occurs, will it be long before we can defend not giving them a piece of the profits?”

That e-mail was sent eight years ago.  It’s amazing it’s taken this long for the NCAA to have to face the consequences… assuming there are any beyond legal fees.

But enough of that and back to the original question.  How much would it change your perception of the player and the sport if it were a Dawg who stepped forward to become the face of the O’Bannon complaint?


Filed under College Football, The NCAA