If there’s one thing I’m pretty certain of, it’s that Mark Richt would never tolerate the likes of Lacey Pearl Earps as a recruiting hostess at Georgia.
Daily Archives: January 24, 2015
… Various levels of homecoming fantasy – Peyton Manning, Tee Martin, Jim Bob Cooter – may dominate early fan conversation, but if the Vols do go outside the existing family, it seems more likely than not it will be to a name you weren’t really familiar with before hot boards started showing up today.
That may not be the most Vol thing ever, but UT fans yearning for the return of Jim Bob Cooter has to be up in the top three, at least.
Key part from this interesting article about the academic fraud suit filed against the NCAA and UNC this week:
As he did in the O’Bannon case, Hausfeld has designed McCants v. UNC to compel sweeping and historic changes to college sports. Hausfeld demands the creation of an independent commission that would audit Division I programs to ensure that athletes are not victimized by academic fraud and that minority athletes are not receiving inferior education. Audits would also measure post-graduation employment for college athletes and whether — as some NCAA advertisements suggest — playing sports helps the job prospects of college athletes. Hausfeld also seeks monetary damages for all former and current NCAA athletes who didn’t receive the meaningful education they were promised by the NCAA, conferences and member institutions.
In what is already a transformative era of college sports, McCants v. UNC has the potential for further disruption. Race bubbles close to the surface of most discussions about college sports. But McCants v. UNC is the first of the recent high-profile college sports cases to link race to the law. It is also unique in that it raises claims on behalf of both men and women who played college sports, highlighting problems in the relationship between big-time college sports and academic integrity beyond football and men’s basketball programs.
McCants v. UNC is the educational bookend of O’Bannon v. NCAA, which will be reviewed by a federal appeals court later this year. O’Bannon highlights what NCAA critics regard as the economic “exploitation” of college athletes’ name, image and likeness rights. One of the NCAA’s key defenses in O’Bannon is to champion its system of amateurism, which encompasses NCAA rules designed to safeguard the educational experience of college athletes. In McCants v. UNC, Hausfeld attacks the NCAA’s educational defense head-on and asserts that amateurism damages rather than enhances education. The 100-page complaint details a history of college athletes receiving inferior education so that they can remain eligible and generate revenue for their schools, conferences and the NCAA. Justifications for the McCants and O’Bannon cases are thus joined at the hip.
This is going to be a tough case for the plaintiffs to win. But, then again, that was the early perception of O’Bannon, and look how that’s turned out. In any event, we should expect the same steady Chinese water torture drip of unflattering information and admissions emerging from plaintiff’s discovery in this case as we saw in the earlier one.
This is just beginning, but even at this early stage, does anyone think the NCAA and the schools will emerge unscathed from this? And with that in mind, does anyone think the NCAA and the schools will do the smart thing and look to settle the case instead of risking that?
Yes, I know, Mark Emmert. That was a rhetorical question.
I’m more than happy to join the chorus of those unhappy with Georgia’s recruitment of offensive linemen. (Perhaps the money thrown at Rob Sale sent a message that he was needed on the recruiting trail stat.) And I’ve complained about Richt’s approach to roster management for years. But even with that in mind, I find this to be one deeply strange article about the current state of Georgia recruiting.
That’s what sets the state of Georgia apart from a place like Louisiana. Both are southern states with clear-cut college football powers, but the pull of LSU for the caliber of player Ohio State is looking for is so strong that recruiting Louisiana isn’t worth the risk for the Buckeyes.
Georgia is worth the risk because the players are willing to leave.
Numbers bear that out. But instead of digging into the whys and wherefores – transient population in the metro Atlanta area, sheer geographic size of the state, the number of D-1 kids the state’s high schools produce annually – the author is satisfied comparing Georgia to Louisiana and Ohio as evidence that Richt’s approach is flawed.
• Since 2005, Georgia has signed 35 percent (7-of-20) of in-state players rated five-star prospects by 247Sports. Meanwhile LSU has signed 67 percent (10-of-15), and Ohio State has signed 73 percent (8-of-11) of their in-state five-stars.
• Of the top 5 in-state players each year from 2006-2014, Georgia has signed just 21, while LSU has signed 35 and Ohio State has signed 31 out of their respective states.
• Georgia has signed the state’s No. 1 overall player just four times in the last decade.
“There are certain states that just by quality and quantity you go, the Texas, the Georgia, the Florida, the New Jersey, those are off the top of my head that we’re going to saturate a little bit, but then we go cherry pick the best players at certain positions, and Ohio State is a national brand,” Meyer said after beating Oregon in the National Championship.
Nice advertising. Clearly this is a member of the media who has no intention of sitting in Seat 37F.
The timing is strange in that Georgia is having a strong year in state right now on the recruiting front. The piece also ignores the success Georgia has had doing exactly what it touts Meyer for doing, cherry picking top players from other states. Not to mention that currently Georgia leads both LSU and Ohio State in whatever recruiting rankings you care to check out right now.
But that’s not the weirdest part of the article. This is:
Here’s a caption: “How can that happen?”
That was repeated several times by Creekside coach Olten Downs during an in-person interview with cleveland.com on Thursday….
“You see a guy like Vonn Bell making interceptions and you say, ‘How’d you let him leave the state?'” Downs said. “You see a guy like Raekwon McMillan starting as a freshman. You’re hurting for linebackers, but you let this guy leave? How can that happen? I don’t know. I think (Georgia) wants guys who love Georgia, and want to play for Georgia. That’s all fine and dandy but you still gotta make guys feel special and wanted.”
My first thought upon reading that was somebody’s butt hurts. And I’m not really sure why. Creekside is where the Berry clan hails from, so there’s little surprise that Tennessee’s made some inroads there. And that Georgia’s come up short in some battles. But the Dawgs have a current commitment from a Creekside kid, Jayson Stanley, so it’s hard to understand why Downs is complaining about benign neglect as a standard for Georgia’s recruiting approach. To criticize Georgia’s staff, especially the guys who’ve been recruiting Georgia’s 2015 class, for lack of effort seems like a bit of an overstatement.
It sounds like Richt needs to go have a heart-to-heart chat with somebody. Because you can bet Corch will be waving this story around for a while.
UPDATE: One more thing to put in perspective about this…
Corch has to cherry pick out of state because there simply isn’t enough local talent. Not just to go around, but even for Ohio State’s selfish needs. He doesn’t have the wealth of choice available to Richt. And that’s not changing any time soon.