True or false

Two reasons are raised as potential road blocks to player compensation in this article about the NCAA’s probe of giving players some control over their names, likenesses and images.  See if you can pick out the bullshit one.

Coaches, though, almost have to take that approach. Any coach who made a public statement against it would have it used against him on the recruiting trail. Privately, most coaches have the same concerns Tanner has. What happens if a local car dealer decides to the star quarterback or star running back is worth $20,000 per year as a spokesman? How do the offensive linemen feel about that?

“How does that work in your locker room?” Tanner wondered.

He also wondered if some of a school’s donor base might decide to invest their money straight into athletes instead of, say, donating for a $50 million football operations center.

Yeah, I know that’s a tough call.

(h/t)

Advertisement

Clear and obvious

I’ve read this three times now, wondering if replay can really be that sensibly applied.

That’s why Thursday’s statement by Canadian Football League commissioner Randy Ambrosie was so refreshing. Read it in full below.

With the 2019 CFL regular season about to kick off, we want to be as clear as possible on the role of the Command Centre, the standard on which it will conduct video reviews and the philosophy behind that standard. The Command Centre will focus on only overturning calls or non-calls made on the field where a clear and obvious mistake has been made.  In other words, we do not want the game officiated from the Command Centre. The officials on the field have the best sense of the game and usually have a superior vantage point compared to a camera on the sidelines or in the stands.

The Command Centre is just a “back up” to correct clear and obvious mistakes – what are sometimes called egregious errors. Anyone who has played the game, or cheered for a team, knows how one views any play can be somewhat subjective. So how do we, as objectively as possible, define clear and obvious?  Clear refers to the visibility of the issue in question. Can you see, for example, the ball clearly on the replay? Or the foot on the sideline? Is the camera angle straight down the line? Or is it off to the side? Obvious refers to an indisputable reference point, such as a yard line, a sideline, or a knee down. Can you easily see, for example, that the contact on a receiver was early? Or do you have to resort to looking at it in slow motion?

Simply put, you shouldn’t have to watch something several times, or watch at different speeds, if it is clear and obvious. Why is clear and obvious our standard? Why not strive to get every single call right, even if the error was less than clear and obvious?  We want to keep the length of Command Centre reviews reasonable. We do not want video review to slow the pace or flow of the game. We especially do not want it to adversely affect our fans’ enjoyment of the game.

Watching players stand around while the Command Centre looks at a play for a long time is simply not fun. We also want to reduce the total number of challenges by making sure our coaches know they should not use a challenge to simply seek a second opinion; they should only use it to challenge clear and obvious mistakes.

I’m having a hard time arguing it can’t.  What do you guys think?  Is common sense a bitch, or not?

Lost decade in Gainesville

Well, this is something that explains much.

In 2018, Feleipe Franks had the best passing season by a Gator since Tim Tebow in 2009.

“Best season since Tebow” sounds a helluva lot better than seventh in the conference in passer rating, doesn’t it?