If Bret Bielema didn’t exist, Nick Saban would have to invent him.

I’ve figured out the role ol’ Bert is playing in the 10-second substitution rule fracas.  He’s there to make Nick Saban seem like the reasonable one.

He also reiterated his stance that the proposal is safety-based — saying he wants to be proactive and make a change before a fatal injury.

The former Wisconsin coach pointed to the recent death of California football player Ted Agu during a training run, saying the inability to substitute an injured player between plays could lead to injury or death…

… He also offered a direct counter to the claim there’s no hard evidence of increased risk of injury.

“Death certificates,” Bielema said. “There’s no more anything I need than that.”

It’s hard, but take a step past the sanctimonious crocodile tears being shed over the random tragedy of a kid’s death – at a February practice! – and the indirect shot at Agu’s coach, who, by the way, is one of the more outspoken critics of the substitution proposal, and focus on the larger ramifications of Bielema’s position.  If a player’s death is all that’s needed to justify changing a rule in the name of player safety, why stop at a 10-second substitution requirement?  Indeed, why stop anywhere?

I mean, start with this…

He mentioned that a half a dozen players with the Razorbacks have been diagnosed with sickle cell trait, and that the team’s trainers must constantly watch the players for signs of dehydration or exhaustion.

“I think it’s still safety battle,” Bielema said. “… I know every one of those coaches probably has a player in that same scenario, but it hasn’t happened.

“It’s kind of like, do we have to have this happen before we talk about it?”

… and ask if a rule banning kids who have been diagnosed with sickle-cell trait should be banned from playing the sport shouldn’t be considered.

It’s interesting that a guy who gained national attention for his move a few years ago to have his kick return team go offsides on two kickoff attempts to run out the clock in the first half, thereby exposing 22 special teams players to extra risk of contact (remember, there’s been enough concern about player safety on kickoffs that they were moved five yards closer to the opponent’s end zone to limit the chance for contact) to gain a strategic advantage by abusing a rule has suddenly found religion on player safety.  Or dickish.  Take your pick.

Bielema claims to be confident that the proposal will pass when the NCAA playing rules oversight panel votes on March 6.  I’m pretty confident that if he’s running point on the deal, it won’t.  I’m also pretty confident he won’t be winning any Mr. Popularity awards from his peers in the near future.

Was asked about perception that the change is from 'sour grapes' by coaches who don't hurry up. "Don't bother me in any way shape or form."—
Troy Schulte (@TroySchulteADG) February 21, 2014

**************************************************************************

UPDATE:

Bielema on what Saban said: "As a rules committee, we don’t ever discuss anything that’s ever said in that environment." But BB not on comm.—
Brandon Marcello (@bmarcello) February 21, 2014

He knows he should STFU.  He just can’t come up with a good excuse as to why.

**************************************************************************

UPDATE #2:  Somebody needs to explain the First law of holes to Bert.

“… What if you’re in the middle of the third or fourth quarter and you know that the kid standing 15 yards away from you or on the other side of the field has this trait. He’s got this built-in possibility of something happening. Your doctors have told you about it. Your trainers have told you about it. He looks at you through those eyes or maybe the trainer even says, “Hey coach, you need to get him out of there.” And you can’t. You have no timeouts. He’s not going to fake an injury. He’s not going to fall down…”

If the trainer says a kid needs to get out of a game, how’s the kid faking an injury?

Paying playerz iz hard wurk.

Iowa athletic director claims he’ll “probably choose to do something else for a living” than continue in his $400K/year position if player compensation becomes a reality because it’ll be too complicated for him to handle.

These guys don’t even bother to make an effort to sound convincing anymore.

(h/t Eleven Warriors)

Tap dancing on the grave of the BCS

Dan Wetzel’s BCS obituary is one of the most disingenuous things I’ve ever read.  And I’m not saying that out of my longstanding fear of where we’re likely headed with college football’s postseason expansion.

I say it because it’s bullshit to insist that the BCS was created to line the pockets of John Junker, and then go on to admit that the new arrangement “… will make some bowls big money. Bigger than ever…”.

I say it because it’s bullshit to pretend that every argument raised in favor of the BCS was “ludicrous and demonstrably untrue”.

I say it because this is the biggest pile of crap of all:

No discussion of the BCS should focus on who got to play in the title game, even when the game ends up like the last one, a 34-31 classic that crowned Florida State national champions over Auburn on Monday night.

No BCS discussion should focus on who played for the title?  Sure makes it easier to win your side of the debate, Dan.

Tuesday morning buffet

Line up and dig in.

• The long reach of Nevin Shapiro.  (It’s not just football, either.)
• Jason Kirk notes that Alabama is far from the only school grayshirting recruits this year.  (In fact, this move by Tennessee to grayshirt a questionable prospect to get his friend to switch from Vanderbilt (!) seems more obnoxious.)
• Matt Hinton on the spread continuing to spread.
• And Vic Koenning on what that means for college defensive coordinators.
• If Spurrier is hanging around in hopes of putting the final polish on his legacy, is it wrong for me to hope that Georgia makes him stay in Columbia longer than he’d like by denying him that?  (That was a rhetorical question, if you were wondering.)
• This probably doesn’t help his chances.
• When a school leaves a conference, you can count on the lawyers showing up.
• Stanley Williams needs to learn the First Rule of Holes.

In a shocking development, a Georgia Tech fan finds fault with the way Mark Richt runs his program.

This critique of Richt is so fact free it makes Mark Bradley look like the Encyclopedia Britannica.  Consider all of these assertions (from a relatively short piece), made without any supporting data:

• “But Mark Richt has created an atmosphere in Athens to where there have been a number of players, past and present, that do not respect the discipline methods of their head coach.”
• “In some of his player’s eyes, he is a pushover.”
• “And since Richt has been in Athens, he has traditionally been known to be the most relaxed in the SEC on handling discipline to his players (Spurrier and Stephen Garcia aside).”
• “Suspension of players for a quarter of one game, a half of another, or maybe a suspension during a non-conference opponent such as New Mexico, Georgia Southern, or Wyoming.”  (Yes, I know that’s not a complete sentence.)
• “Then there are coaches like Gene Chizik, Nick Saban, and Les Miles that have mixed a tough discipline policy with newer ideals than those from a generation or two ago and have had national championship success.”

I could spend a lot of time picking this crap apart bit by bit – his suspension data is a total departure from reality, for example – but I think I’ll just settle for a quote from Janoris Jenkins about another coach well known for mixing discipline policy with newer ideals:

“No doubt, if Coach Meyer were still coaching, I’d still be playing for the Gators,” says Jenkins, a star cornerback and a potential first-round draft pick whom Muschamp booted from UF’s team after being arrested twice for possession of marijuana during the offseason. “Coach Meyer knows what it takes to win.”

Funny, those newer ideals sure sound a lot like the older ones.

Look, I’m not going to sit here and proclaim that Mark Richt does a perfect job with discipline.  No coach does.  Nor do I  have any particularly direct insight into how Georgia players feel about their head coach’s approach to handling behavior problems.  Neither does Taylor King, though.

But here’s what I do know:  Isaiah Crowell’s path to being the number one running back was cleared in part by one predecessor being dismissed from the team by Mark Richt and another being dismissed for academic problems.  Both strike me as sending pretty clear messages about accountability.  If those did not sink into Crowell’s conscious thinking, what exactly does Taylor King suggest would do the trick?  Public stoning?

(As a side note, if Richt’s “lack of discipline is the major reason that Mark Richt has failed to bring home a national championship to Bulldog nation”, how can one explain Richt winning ten out of the eleven games he’s coached in the Tech series?  Is Paul Johnson that bad a head coach?)