Daily Archives: January 20, 2021
Again, I’m not even gonna try to pretend to change the subject.
Share your feelings about the transfer of office in the comments.
I don’t know if you’ve seen the latest clip, where he provides some specific allegations about what got Jeremy Pruitt in trouble and doubles down on Georgia (no specifics, though), but if you haven’t, here ’tis:
“Sloppy” is his big word here. The Vols were sloppy. Georgia was sloppy.
Well, as much as I have enjoyed watching the debacle in Knoxville unfold, even I can’t buy Mickey D bags o’ cash. That’s so far beyond sloppy that were it true, UT should have fired Pruitt just for being galactically moronic. (Before you go there, I said “galactically”.)
And as for Georgia, the school has already taken the unprecedented step of denying Patrick’s claim publicly. Beyond that, though, of all the criticisms we could lay at the feet of Kirby Smart, sloppiness ain’t one of them. Let’s just say that without getting into sausage making details, I’ve love to know how Dan’s source came by his information. I’m guessing it’s not exactly first hand. In other words, there’s never a bad time to cast aspersions on the recruiting trail, and if you can stir a little unwanted shit in another direction, it’s almost a bonus.
That being said, I have to admit I would enjoy it immensely if UT were to hire Jason Witten as its next head coach. I can never get enough of watching the Urnge inmates run the asylum.
Another David Hale data dump:
I don’t have to tell you what Georgia’s four-game streak neatly coincides with, do I?
You may not be impressed with that defensive streak, but not many teams on that list faced Alabama (4th in offensive yards per game) and Florida (9th). Beyond that, six of Georgia’s ten opponents finished their games with less than 300 yards of total offense. Bottom line, Georgia’s problem on defense is figuring out how to corral explosive offenses — or, at the least, figuring out how to limit them enough to give the Dawgs a chance to win shootouts.
Really, it’s Tennessee, so why should I be surprised?
The search firm Tennessee used to aid in the hiring of former football coach Derek Dooley, former men’s basketball coach Cuonzo Martin and former baseball coach Dave Serrano has been retained to assist in filling UT’s athletics director vacancy.
UT on Saturday agreed to a letter of understanding with Atlanta-based Parker Executive Search, which will charge the university $120,000 for its assistance in the athletics director search.
Parker’s done a bang up job for UT.
The coaching hires Tennessee made with Parker’s help ended in underwhelming fashion.
Dooley was fired after three seasons. Martin departed for California after three seasons with the Vols, highlighted by a Sweet 16 appearance. Serrano resigned in 2017 after a compiling a 157-160 record in six seasons.
Tennessee has used Parker in at least 10 hires for leadership positions, including its search that produced Davenport’s 2016 hiring – she was fired in 2018 – and the hiring of Davenport’s predecessor, Jimmy Cheek, as well as the 2011 hiring of athletics director Dave Hart, who retired in 2017.
You know the old saying about insanity — doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? Sometimes, that’s just stupidity. I’ll leave you to judge which is the case here.
Andy Staples ($$) has written a massive piece about how the P5 schools (or most of them, anyway) should break off from the NCAA for football and form their own management association. I’ll skip past the macro concern I have with it (without an antitrust exemption, forming a monolithic group means the schools lose the one competitive argument they’ve had to argue; besides, somebody’s gonna have to convince me the commissioners are ready to surrender their power to a central authority) as well as my questions about some of his individual suggestions, and turn, instead, to focus on his NIL argument. Excerpts:
The people in charge now want to ensure the new NIL rules keep players from being paid to attend a certain school. This is a foolish thing to worry about. Of course, players will be paid to attend certain schools when the new rules are in effect. Players are paid under the table to attend certain schools now. Recruiting is a competitive endeavor, and opening up more avenues to pay players — because keeping those avenues closed violates their basic rights — will make it even easier to funnel money to players to choose certain schools.
… Could a booster under this system give a five-star high school quarterback a $1 million endorsement deal with the tacit agreement that the QB is getting the money because he signs with Big State? Absolutely. And when that QB gets beat out by the junior three-star (who just happens to be better because quarterback recruiting is a crapshoot), then that booster would be out $1 million and it would serve as a warning to anyone dumb enough to invest that kind of money in a 17-year-old.
… You might be saying, “But then only a few schools would get most of the best football recruits.” Yes. Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia, LSU and Clemson would get most of the best football recruits. Just like they do now.
Of all the arguments against player compensation, the competitive disadvantage one is the particular line I don’t get at all. Right now, the powerhouse schools successfully use their resources to enhance facilities and infrastructure to attract the top recruits. All that would change under a new compensation regime is that those resources would be redirected more efficiently to the recruits themselves. That’s hardly a sea change. Further, as Staples notes, there’s nothing stopping a school not in that group Staples cites from getting a bunch of boosters to pony up a fund to go out and battle them to attract recruits.
Now, you may not like watching the sausage being made, and I get that. But I don’t understand the argument that somehow this is going to increase the lack of parity in college football.