“We have had it up to here with these students, with the public intoxication, public sex acts and fights.”

I don’t understand all the angst about handling this.  The solution is real simple:  outsource Jimmy Williamson and his troops for the week.  Nobody’s left to roust in Athens then anyway.

Your “hubba hubba” post of the day

All I can say about Georgia’s wealth of talent at linebacker is that, barring an obscene rash of injuries, there is no acceptable excuse for any of ’em to get tired in a game.

Steve Patterson continues the rebranding.

The Texas AD doesn’t see the need to schedule a game with Texas A&M, but sending a group to Dubai “on a football-related trip meant to explore future possibilities for Texas athletics”?  No problemo.

And isn’t it convenient that Steve’s wife speaks Arabic?

He’s something else.

(h/t)

Advertisement

Your “year of readiness” ain’t ready.

I have mocked things coming out of The Drake Group on more than one occasion, so when I tell you that this strikes me as an effective rebuttal of Big Jim Delany’s “year of readiness” proposal…

The Drake Group pointed out three negative impacts that would stem from the Big Ten’s proposal:

(1) academically capable students will be penalized by lack of access to extracurricular activities; (2) academically capable students who wish to complete four years of athletic eligibility will have to stay in school for one or two additional semesters, increasing the cost of education to these students or to institutions that provide athletic or other scholarship assistance (estimated to be $94.5 million); and (3) non-scholarship (walk-on) athletes who may be outstanding students will see their graduation dates delayed if they wish to compete for four years.

Absent a demonstrated positive academic impact and considering the adverse economic and academic consequences, freshmen ineligibility seems misguided for athletes generally, for all participants in revenue sports, or for football and men’s basketball players only.

The Drake Group said the Big Ten’s proposal “masks the real problem” that many of the athletes who are recruited to participate in big time Division I athletics are “unprepared” for the academic workload. These students, the paper said, are often admitted “by means of exceptions to normal admission standards, and then experience excessive athletically related time demands.”

… that ought to speak volumes about how weak Delany’s argument is.  But, hey, if I’ve misjudged Delany’s sincerity about supporting the academic mission, all he needs to do is embrace even a part of this…

(1) full enforcement of the 20 hours per week limit on all athletically related activities when classes are in session; (2) no competition during final examination periods; (3) adoption of institutional policies by faculty senates approving the maximum percentage of classes that may be missed due to scheduled athletic competitions; (4) no athletic department requirement that athletes select majors and courses that are The Drake Group Position Paper: Freshmen Ineligibility in Intercollegiate Athletics April 20, 2015 Page 3 of 12 compatible with athletics practices, meetings or competitions, (5) the scheduling of football games on weekends exclusively, because both athletes and students who are non-athletes are likely to attend; (6) the provision of athlete academic support services by academic units only, not by the athletic department; and (7) adoption of NCAA continuing eligibility standards requiring that any athlete with a cumulative GPA less than 2.0 be ineligible to participate in athletics, be restricted to a maximum of 10 athletics practice or meeting hours per week, and remain ineligible until a cumulative 2.0 GPA is achieved.

… and I’ll be happy to acknowledge a correction.  Not that I’ll be holding my breath about it.

“Some things … in certain areas may be out of whack.”

No shit, Sherlock… er, Larry Scott.

But it’s not like it’s a job, right?

A post-spring test? Nobody said anything about a test!

Kevin Causey, of College Football Zealots, is organizing a little roundtable discussion about Georgia football, and asked me to participate.  I thought I’d share the questions he’s asked me to address (you’ll have to read his posts for the answers).

1- If the season started today, which of our quarterbacks would you want under center (and why)?

2- Georgia must replace both of their leading receivers, Chris Conley (36 rec in 2014) and Michael Bennett (37 rec), this season. Barring injury, Malcolm Mitchell and Justin Scott-Wesley should be able to contribute greatly in 2015 but depth is a big concern. Who needs to step up in this area and who do you see as the other top contributors?

3- What is your biggest concern on defense (and why)?

4- This could change but right now what is your gut feeling on what makes this season a successful one for Mark Richt and the Georgia Bulldogs?

I’ve already sent in my answers, but I’d like to read yours.  Have at it in the comments.

Tuesday morning buffet

The remains of the day…

• Here’s a look at Georgia’s wideouts and the change at position coach.
• Corch, what do you say to recruits when they ask you about Aaron Hernandez? “I have never been asked about that. But I just answered that question earlier (from other reporters). My thoughts are that it’s a terrible tragedy for all the family members involved. That was many, many years ago (when I coached him at Florida).”
• This sounds like it’s gonna be a tough sell.
• If you want a little recruiting porn, here’s Jacob Eason talking about when he committed to Georgia.
• Georgia’s only academic casualty in the 2015 class is already enrolled at JUCO and hopes to join the Dawgs as soon as next January.
• George O’Leary says he’s going to contact coaches from Florida schools to see if they’d be interested in playing an exhibition game.  Hell, I’d watch it.
• Here’s a brief rundown of things that weren’t cleared up with the past weekend of SEC spring games.
• And Seth Emerson walks through the post-spring state of Georgia’s secondary.  (If you said to yourself, “more talent, same Pruitt”, give yourself a cookie.)

“It’s put a perverse incentive on schools to inflate their listed costs.”

And so, predictably, the money chase begins.

Last year, after a federal judge ruled that the National Collegiate Athletic Association may not cap scholarships for athletes below their full cost of attendance, Texas Christian University conducted an online survey of undergraduates to determine the accuracy of its cost-of-attendance estimates…

… Texas Christian determined that students’ monthly living expenses were much higher than the university had been projecting. As a result, the university came up with a new estimate — $4,700 per academic year, more than double its previous figure — which it now includes among the expenses for prospective students.

Shocking, right?  Okay, maybe not in the abstract.  After all, TCU is just following the leader here.

Officials at Auburn University, whose cost-of-attendance estimates had remained relatively flat during six of those recent seven years — from $2,304 and $2,678 — experienced a big spike in 2014-15. That year its numbers jumped to $5,586, where they will remain for 2015-16, says Mike Reynolds, executive director of student financial services.

He says Auburn had mistakenly not been including transportation costs in the estimates, which it added in 2014. Institutions must account for cost-of-attendance estimates different ways for different reports, he says, and it was a simple oversight that had nothing to do with sports.

Yeah, sure.  But still, Auburn’s gonna Auburn, and all that.  How ’bout an example closer to home?

After posting this blog I heard from Georgia AD Greg McGarity. He says the data used by The Chronicle of Higher Education for its comparison of total costs is outdated. UGA’s latest cost of attendance figures includes $3,221 for costs beyond tuition, room, board, books and fees for Georgia residents living on campus and $3,746 for non-Georgia residents living on campus. That is the amount of the stipend that UGA can provide to athletes under the new rules. It’s not clear how those figures compare to the latest data from the other SEC schools.

That does not sound like the Georgia Way.  And you get the feeling that this particular arms race is just beginning.

This aggression will not stand, man.

In the span of a few months, Texas Christian went from having one of the lowest cost-of-attendance estimates among the 65 biggest athletic departments to one of the highest, according to a Chronicle analysis.

Moves like that have led to much consternation in college sports, as programs with less money to spend worry that they will be at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting players.

Such worries have led athletic directors to consider new rules that would standardize aid allowances for athletes. The discussions are at an early stage but have included suggestions that all major programs be allowed to offer players a certain amount — say, $4,000 per player over nine months — no matter how much their colleges cost to attend.

Perfect.  Fix the problem you created by price-fixing with more price-fixing.  It’s like the schools want the courts to micromanage the whole student-athlete compensation thing.  “Save us from our own stupidity” will also make for a nice sales pitch to Congress when the schools go asking for that antitrust exemption.

In the meantime, watch the numbers at the usual suspects climb.