Jeremiah Holloman has placed his name in the NCAA transfer portal.
Daily Archives: June 26, 2019
The NCAA Division I council is expected to approve a package of new guidelines that could make it more difficult for college football and basketball players who transfer to receive immediate eligibility via waivers, according to a document obtained by USA TODAY Sports.
The council is scheduled to meet Wednesday in Indianapolis to review the updated guidelines and directives, which in many cases appear to specify and narrow the circumstances in which athletes should be given waivers and raise the documentation requirements to obtain them. Compliance staffs at Division I schools were made aware of the proposals last week.
The new guidelines are not rules but essentially a set of directions for the Committee on Legislative Relief, which decides whether or not to grant the waivers…
In 2018, the NCAA implemented a new policy that would allow waivers to be granted on a case-by-case basis by the committee if the athlete could demonstrate “documented mitigating circumstances outside of the student-athlete’s control and directly impacts the health, safety or well-being of the student-athlete.”
… The updated language of that same guideline is less broad, requiring “documented extenuating, extraordinary and mitigating circumstances outside of the student-athlete’s control that directly impacts the health, safety or well-being of the student-athlete.”
How do you know the seemingly arbitrary nature of the waiver process had become a problem? Because even Tom Mars thinks an adjustment is called for.
“Across the board, the proposed new guidelines raise the bar for schools seeking a waiver on behalf of a student-athlete,” said attorney Tom Mars, who has represented a number of high-profile athletes in waiver cases over the last year. “Given the dramatic increase in the number of waivers being sought for the 2019-20 season, raising the bar strikes me as a sensible short-term reaction by the Legislative Council.”
I still say an objective, one-time open transfer makes a lot more sense. We’ll see what this leads to in the meantime.
I worried I had no topic du jour for you, but fortunately Alabama voters rose to the occasion.
Tommy Tuberville is looked upon more favorably than an accused molester, so there’s that, at least. Don’t say those Alabama folks lack standards.
And, on that note, the Playpen is yours.
This Moneyball-comes-to-football-recruiting piece is one of the more interesting things I’ve read of late.
If there’s really something to it, I can’t wait to watch the funding wars heat up as P5 football programs across the country dramatically increase their analytics staffs.
AirForceDawg has done his annual dive into the financial information available at the U.S. Department of Education’s Equity in Athletics Data Analysis (EADA) website and come up with the numbers for the fourteen SEC schools for the most current fiscal year. (For year-over-year comparison purposes, you might want to review last year’s post on the subject.)
If you’re wondering whether Georgia did okay, well, judge for yourself.
– Revenues: $176,699,894
– Expenses: $124,029,698
– Profit: $52,670,196
– Men’s Teams
— Revenue: $142,260,691
— Expenses: $61,790,672
— Profit: $80,470,019
– Women’s Teams
— Revenue: $4,704,781
— Expenses: $19,328,309
— Losses: -$14,623,528
— Revenue: $129,023,591
— Expenses: $44,909,546
— Profit: $84,114,045
– Men’s Basketball
— Revenue: $10,252,418
— Expenses: $8,539,387
— Profit: $1,713,031
Overall athletic department revenue is up and so is the net profit. The real eye-opener is football profit, which increased from $56,947,313 in fiscal year 2017 to an astounding $84,114,045. Doing the math, it appears that almost $32 million of that figure went into subsidizing other programs besides men’s basketball and, of course, general administrative expenses.
The comparison with Georgia’s thirteen SEC peers is quite remarkable, as well.
1. Georgia: $176,699,894 Revenue, $124,029,698 Expenses, $52,670,196 Profit
2. Alabama: $181,470,156 Revenue, $149,583,715 Expenses, $31,886,441 Profit
3. Auburn: $147,620,572 Revenue, $132,354,047 Expenses, $15,266,525 Profit
4. Mississippi State: $93,752,613 Revenue, $83,560,214 Expenses, $10,192,399 Profit
5. Texas A&M: $152,971,142 Revenue, $143,231,483 Expenses, $9,739,659 Profit
6. LSU: $145,422,795 Revenue, $137,451,522 Expenses, $7,971,273 Profit
7. Vanderbilt: $80,093,541 Revenue, $74,070,975 Expenses, $6,022,566 Profit
8. Arkansas: $132,545,645 Revenue, $130,595,275 Expenses, $1,950,370 Profit
9. Kentucky: $125,462,485 Revenue, $125,236,165, $226,320 Profit
10. South Carolina: $140,084,150 Revenue, $139,972,480 Expenses, $111,670 Profit
T11. Florida: $157,240,476 Revenue, $157,240,476 Expenses, $0 Profit
T11. Tennessee: $142,686,084 Revenue, $142,686,084 Expenses, $0 Profit
T11. Ole Miss: $99,157,535 Revenue, $99,157,535 Expenses, $0 Profit
T11. Missouri: $93,744,322 Revenue, $93,744,322 Expenses, $0 Profit
When you add it up, the total profit the other 13 schools racked up totaled $83,267,223, an average of $6,405,171. As a percentage, Georgia’s profit alone comprised 38.75% of the SEC’s total profit. Yowza!
Believe it or not, I mention this not as a lead in to a rant about player exploitation, but simply to note that you’d think with all that money available, Greg McGarity could pilot an athletic department to a more robust result in the NACDA Learfield Directors’ Cup than a mediocre 25th-place finish [Ed. note: current showing, pending baseball results] overall and sixth best in the SEC. But that would mean caring as much about general athletic excellence as the reserve account balance, and that’s not how the Georgia Way is wired.
I keep coming back to this quote from McGarity when he was hired.
McGarity, who played and coached tennis at Georgia and worked in its athletic administration before leaving for Florida, said “there is nothing greater than being part of championships. That’s why we do what we do.
“At the end of the day,” he continued, “all the time you put in at the office, the fun comes when you’re competing for championships and you see what these coaches have done over a number of years to finally get to the top of the mountain and you’re able to be just a small piece of that.”
You having fun yet, Georgia fans?
We may not have the athletic director we want, but we do have the athletic director the powers that be think we deserve.
I picked up my copy of Phil Steele’s 2019 Football Preview yesterday and I’ll have more to say about it tomorrow. One thing I have to note is that, while Steele is certainly complimentary about the Dawgs — he has Georgia third in his power ratings and fourth in his rankings after factoring in scheduling — there’s still something of a sense of being a little underwhelmed about them.
I can think of a few reasons why Steele comes off that way, but one is because I sense the existence of a sizeable gap between Georgia and his top two teams, which are Alabama and Clemson (duh). He’s hardly
along alone in that (duh, again). Here, for example, is Matt Hinton’s annual exercise in listing college football’s top 100 players.
It may not be definitive, but it is useful. Check out the number of players from those three schools who make Matt’s list:
- Alabama 13
- Clemson 7
- Georgia 4
It’s not that Georgia’s showing is unimpressive there. No other SEC program has as many as four on that list. It’s that ‘Bama and Clemson lap the field.
If you buy this as mid-June reality, Georgia’s got some player developing to do. That’s not to say it’s an impossible task, but a task it is.
I guess it’s my day for asking questions, but for those of you who advocate moving the Cocktail Party out of Jacksonville and making it just another SEC East home-and-home deal because having that extra game in Athens every other season is more advantageous for the Dawgs, doesn’t that line of thought apply equally to this?
Isn’t it just as much a disadvantage for Georgia to travel to places like Oklahoma and FSU instead of scheduling another home cupcake as it is to play in Jax? In fact, as those games aren’t being played at neutral sites, but at opponents’ stadiums, isn’t it more of a disadvantage? Is Kirby dumb for pursuing this approach as hard as he has?
Serious question for debate here, although first I have to say that I find this hypothetical a bit of a stretch, simply because I think the NCAA will be forced to come up with something more favorable to student-athletes on the NLI front that the politicians will accept, but read this:
Isn’t it at least as likely that the California law gives state schools a recruiting advantage over every other jurisdiction in that they can offer student-athletes the opportunity to receive payments for things banned in the other 49 states? I mean, money being money and all that, why wouldn’t that be a plus?
This is pretty cool. Georgia named one of its defensive calls after Tagovailoa.
It worked pretty damned well, too.
Best part of that clip is watching Kirby sprint down the sideline like a madman, gesturing for an intentional grounding call.