Thursday morning buffet

The chafing dishes are set out and ready to go.

  • Here’s a lawsuit I’ve been waiting to see drop.  Adding the NCAA is a nice touch.
  • The AFCA wants the targeting rules changed to allow for two levels of penalties.  On its face, it sounds sensible, but you can just see that next can of worms waiting to be opened.
  • Malzahn’s “right hand man” jumps off the Gus Bus for… Georgia Tech.
  • Les Miles asks for a change to the recruiting rules after he sees the Kansas roster he inherited.
  • This really seems like the least they could do.
  • And this continues to be the name I hear most frequently as the candidate to be Mel Tucker’s successor, although it has to be said that Kirby seems to be in no hurry on that front.
  • Now they tell us.
  • “If a shoe company wanted to pay one of University of Washington’s running backs $50,000 to appear in a television commercial, House Bill 1084 would permit that.”


Filed under Academics? Academics., Alabama, Auburn's Cast of Thousands, College Football, Georgia Football, Georgia Tech Football, It's Just Bidness, Political Wankery, Recruiting, See You In Court, The Body Is A Temple, The NCAA, Wit And Wisdom From The Hat

28 responses to “Thursday morning buffet

  1. As much as I hated Bobby Knight he proposed no new scholarships until the “student-athlete” graduated.


    • Russ

      That’s an interesting idea, but (like everything) I can see this being abused with worthless degrees. I’d be more inclined to give them lifetime scholarships, so they can come back and get that degree. Also, I think they’d be more likely to get a degree they could use rather than just a piece of paper.


  2. Hogbody Spradlin

    If defense was Alabama’s problem, why couldn’t they score more than 16 points?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Russ

      Their last three games they gave up 28, 34 and 44. And Clemson’s defensive front just killed Bama. It allowed their secondary to take away all the easy throws Tua usually makes.


  3. Atticus

    Lanning and Coley are done


  4. ugafidelis

    Noce no mention to a UGA team that put up, what’d you say Senator? 550 yards of offense in the SECCG.


  5. “90 percent or more of the value of the enterprise is created by the student athletes themselves,” First I do not think this is true. But if it is then it was true 3 years ago, 30 years ago, 50 years ago. It is not something that just happened.


  6. ASEF

    Lol on the “more ball control to help the defense.” At one point in the 3rd quarter, Bama had a 27 minute to 12 TOP advantage and was up about 120 yards. Most of that was a rushing advantage. They trailed 37-16.

    What I saw in that game was one team that prepared specifically for Bama’s preferences and one team that assumes what it had done all year would win the day. Clemson ate Bama’s lunch on 3rd down and red zone. Those are coordinator downs. Venables and Elliott ran rings around Locksley and Lupoi.

    Saban looked oddly detached when they came out of the locker room pre-game. Maybe he suspected something.


  7. I like the direction of the targeting rules. Makes sense to me and can’t believe it’s taken this long to come up with that.


    • Russ

      Somehow they need to address ball carriers lowering their heads and striking with the crown of their helmet. Many times, I’ve seen both players lower their heads, but it’s only the defensive player that gets penalized. If the defensive player plays it legally, they get a helmet in the sternum. It needs to be called both ways.


      • The thing I don’t like is when incidental contact is called targeting. I remember Deangelo Tyson being thrown out of a game at Vanderbilt a few years ago for such an incident. He hit the QB whose head then came forward and their helmets touched. But Tyson did not initiate contact to the head or neck yet was penalized. Incidental contact should not be a penalty.


    • stoopnagle

      So, we’re going to have different grades for targeting, but we did away with them for facemasks?


  8. JasonC

    I don’t know if you saw this article, but it was at least mildly interesting.


  9. Tony Barnfart

    Mickey will love a new multi-pronged approach to reviewing a targeting play. More time to “step away” so we can hear from their “partners.”


  10. DawgPhan

    If I was a tech fan I would be pretty pleased with the new hires. Seems like they are trying to put together a decent staff.


  11. Less Miles has a tough road ahead.


  12. Just Chuck (The Other One)

    If the goal is to make the game safer by elimination hits with the crown of the helmet, how does intention matter? And how do the refs judge intention anyway?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.