“I just want ’em to enforce the rule they have.”

Hey, it’s Son of 10-Second Substitution Rule!

If it’s February, it must be time for a college football rules proposal — and the inevitable pushback.

Several prominent coaches are riled up about a proposal, passed last week by the NCAA Football Rules Committee, that would reduce the distance offensive linemen can be downfield on a pass play from 3 yards to 1 yard beyond the line of scrimmage. The proposal came about after the rise of so-called “pop” passes or “packaged” plays, in which a quarterback has the option to run or pass, but linemen block as though it’s a run.

Enter the usual suspects.

The amount of opposition to the current proposal isn’t clear. But coaches including Graham, Auburn’s Gus Malzahn, Ole Miss’ Hugh Freeze and Baylor’s Art Briles told USA TODAY Sports they’re asking that the proposal be withdrawn. Instead, they’d like officials to make the current rule a “point of emphasis,” calling it tightly and throwing flags if linemen stray beyond the 3-yard boundary.

Malzahn, Freeze and several others have called Air Force coach Troy Calhoun, the chair of the football rules committee, to express their opposition. They’re also making their view known in official comments to the rules committee during a two-week feedback period that began Thursday. If it isn’t tabled, the proposal is scheduled to be considered March 5 by the NCAA’s Playing Rules Oversight Panel.

“This is the second year in a row I’ll be involved in (pushing back against a proposal),” Freeze said.

All we’re missing to square the circle is Bert shedding crocodile tears about players’ health.

You know what’s funny – all these coaches acknowledging the refs have done a crappy job enforcing the rule, and we got stuck with this.

Of all the signees without NLIs Mark Richt knows, Roquan Smith is definitely one of them.

Talk about your awkward interviews.

How did Richt feel about Roquan’s decision to not sign an NLI?

“Well, hmmm …” Richt told the AJC on Friday, before pausing for a few seconds.

The UGA coach then deliberated on that question for a little longer.

“I guess it’s new,” Richt said. “But the main thing was that I was happy he signed his scholarship with Georgia.”

Does Richt think Roquan will be a trendsetter for elite prospects in the future?

“Um, I don’t know … It remains to be seen,” he said. This time, it was me who paused for a few seconds to see if he would expand on his answer. Richt didn’t.

He knows.  But he ain’t sayin’.

If you can’t beat ’em, make ’em join you.

Jason Kirk takes note of something I’m sure is purely coincidental on certain folks’ part.

The ACC, Big 12, and Pac-12 have been kicking around the idea of reviving the ban on first-year players competing in, specifically, college football and men’s basketball. Sure, most pre-1972 rules about broad groups of people being barred from select activities would work great in modern settings. The Big Ten is also reportedly interested in the conversation.

No, this has nothing to do with Kentucky basketball being favored to win its second title in four years thanks to mastering the art of one-and-dones. The fact that the four conferences most interested in the idea are the power conferences Kentucky isn’t a part of? Happenstance. The fact that these four conferences also annually trail the fifth in freshmen who are ready to play college football is another coincidence.

Gives new meaning to the phrase “SEC Speed”, eh?

Sixty-eight commercials.

Just remember, when you hear worries that the average college football game is getting too long, that’s not a concern for the fans.  It’s a concern for the broadcasters.  And they’re the last people who are going to sacrifice.

Beyond their wildest dreams

South Carolina AD Ray Tanner predicts the SEC Network, in its first year of operation, will distribute at least $5 million dollars to each conference school.

To put that in perspective,

… back in 2013 (six years after the launch of the Big Ten Network), Big Ten schools received $7.6 million apiece from the network.

Enjoy those noon starts, SEC fans.  They ain’t going away any time soon.

Worth their while

Why the Kickoff Classic in Atlanta instead of another home game in 2016?

Do you really have to ask?

Georgia will get a $4 million guarantee for playing North Carolina in the Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game in 2016 as well as complimentary hotel accommodations and $50,000 in a scholarship donation back to the university, according to a term sheet for the game obtained from UGA in an open records request.

And most of us will have the privilege of paying more for tickets.  A lot more.

The school will get 42,921 tickets for the game from Peach Bowl, Inc., ranging in price from $50 for student seats to $205 for a “super suite” ticket. More than 23,000 tickets are priced at $85 on the upper level.

Kinda feels traditional, doesn’t it?

************************************************************************

UPDATE:  Ticket price breakdown.

Ticket prices for Georgia-North Carolina in Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game in 2016 from UGA allotment. pic.twitter.com/jhg2KxXzDf

— Marc Weiszer (@marcweiszer) February 20, 2015

You’re starting to freak me out, man.

Bryan McClendon gets his second raise of the offseason.

Butts-Mehre, I don’t even know you anymore.

Now that’s some recruiting service.

The NCAA has slapped Florida with a Level II recruiting violation finding about Joker Phillips breaking the bump rule with a recruit.  (The report doesn’t mention Phillips by name, but it’s not exactly tough to figure out he’s the subject of the violation.)

Phillips was canned and the Gators receive no other penalty, so that’s water under the bridge.  However, you need to check out some of the findings of fact.

From page 3:

The assistant coach was acquainted with an individual who works for a recruiting service that tracks high school prospective student-athletes (“recruiting service reporter”). They have known each other since approximately 2008, when the assistant coach was employed at another FBS institution. They maintained contact through the years. From January 1 through January 22, 2014, the assistant coach and recruiting service reporter exchanged 17 telephone calls. On January 23, 2014, the day the assistant coach committed the violation, they exchanged six calls between 12:41 p.m. and 10:26 p.m.

From page 3-4:

On January 18, 2014, the recruiting service reporter sent a text message to the assistant coach. It stated that the recruiting service reporter was with the 7-on-7 coach and that they wanted to discuss possible prep school options for the prospect. The assistant coach called the recruiting service reporter, who handed the phone to the 7-on-7 coach. They had a short conversation. The assistant coach informed the 7-on-7 coach, whom he believed to be the prospect’s high school coach, that he would be in the 7-on-7 coach’s area later that week and they could discuss the prep school issue further at that time.

From page 4:

The night before his arrival, the assistant coach and recruiting service reporter spoke by phone. During their conversation, the assistant coach confirmed that he was flying in the next day to see the prospect and conduct other business. When he landed just after noon, the assistant coach received a text message from the recruiting service reporter. The assistant coach phoned the recruiting service reporter shortly thereafter, they spoke about directions to the prospect’s school and the recruiting service reporter offered to lead him there. The recruiting service reporter had previously contacted the prospect about coming by to get an update on his recruitment. The assistant coach and recruiting service reporter met at a hotel and, in separate cars with the recruiting service reporter leading, proceeded to the prospect’s school.

The prospect’s high school operated in more than one location. The assistant coach and recruiting service reporter initially drove to the wrong campus. When they realized they were in the wrong location, the recruiting service reporter phoned the prospect and found out where he was. The assistant coach and recruiting service reporter then drove to that location. Prior to their arrival, the recruiting service provider informed the assistant coach that the prospect would be waiting outside.  [Emphasis added.]

From page 5:

In his interviews during the investigation, the prospect stated that the recruiting service reporter had texted him earlier in the day on January 23 to tell him that the recruiting service reporter would be bringing “a surprise” and “a special somebody” with him to the prospect’s school.

So, what do we call the “recruiting service reporter” here?  Bird dog, pimp, enabler, what?  Or was he just being helpful so he could give his subscribers some real inside info?

Joker knew what he was doing and deserved the consequences.  But I’d be real curious to know what became of Joker Number Two.

“These things build a reputation.”

The coaching reaction to what Bobby Petrino pulled on South Carolina high school running back Matt Colburn just before signing day is about what you’d expect, but there’s one little part worth highlighting.

What should recruits do to avoid this? According to a recruiting coordinator for a staff that competes for talent with Louisville, the growing trend is just another example of fading amateurism.

“My first reaction when I heard about [Colburn] had nothing to do with Louisville or with Coach Petrino. It was that now more and more people are starting to understand that college football is a business that affects a lot of people’s lives on both sides. But the onus is on the university. At the end of the day, that’s a binding contract that affects someone’s life from that point moving forward.”

If you’re a coach pulling down major bucks, amateurism is nothing more than a means to an end, the end being to assemble the roster you think best suits your opportunity to win as many games as you can.  There is no romance to it; you can’t afford to be romantic about it.  You push the envelope as much as the rules allow (you also push to make sure the rules don’t change to your detriment, but that’s for another post one day) because that’s what serves your narrow interests best.  And if the school really cared otherwise, you wouldn’t be getting paid so much, or at least not for the same thing.

I’m not saying this to defend Bobby Petrino.  He’s far from the only well-paid gentleman using tactics like this to manage his roster.  But those of you who believe that amateurism covers a lot of sins in college football’s name, why does it always seem to be the schools and their representatives who aren’t on the side of the angels?

Luck

No, not Oliver Luck.  Turnover luck.

I spent a morning pulling TOM data on the last five years to see if there was a pattern or edge I could find that I could use for predicting future team win behavior. Here are the bullets I found that I will post on and feature in the 2015 digital preview magazines coming out soon.

1. The greater the turnover margin, positive and negative, the more likely and greater the regular season win change in the forthcoming season

2. Turnover margin is very random.  Few teams can sustain a high or lower level of annual TOM.

3. Each team is ranked and patterned into predictive pools of trends.  Teams with high and low TOMs the previous season have very high likelihoods of regular season win total changes.

As for his second point, check out the chart in this post from Bartoo:

… It always makes me laugh when someone calling a game ‘predicts’ anything about the winner and the turnover battle.  We all know winning the turnover battle wins a lot of football games.  Each coaching staff emphasizes it and coaches the hell out of the turnover battle.  Offense and defense.

However, it is not so easy to predict.  The results over the last 5 years are all over the board.  There are a lot of teams with top coaching staffs at the top of the five year rankings, but it is difficult to have great results every year.

The teams in light green are the eight FBS teams that have had a positive TO margin each of the last five seasons.  The teams in light red, those are the eight that have had a negative TO margin each of the last five years.  The other 107 teams have had a mix of results.

The Oregon Ducks, the no. 1 ranked team in five year TO margin is the only team to have a double digit TO margin in four of the last five years.  Northern Illinois and Georgia are the only other teams to hit positive double digits three of the last five seasons.  [Emphasis added.]

You’ve only got eight teams out of 120 that have managed positive turnover margin in each of the last five seasons and eight that have done the same on the negative side.  That strikes me as evidence that there’s some degree of randomness in the system.

And Georgia would have joined that first group, but for the disaster that was 2013, with its green defense and Aaron Murray having to carry the offense on his shoulders much of the season.  Given what we’ve had to say about the coaching brain trust over the last five years, how much of that would you attribute to coaching and how much to statistical noise?