Wednesday morning buffet

The buffet is sticking with the college game this morning, thank you very much.

• Mark Richt says SEC head coaches are in favor of an early signing period, explains why.
• Hey, here’s something refreshing – an article about Johnny Manziel that actually sticks to football talk.
• To answer this question, probably not.
• Mike Slive would prefer if you didn’t ask him about Auburn right now.
• Here’s another SEC quarterback rankings list, if your you’re interested.
• Does Georgia need for its offensive line to be dominant?  Its head coach doesn’t think so.  (That worked out in 2003, admittedly.)
• Is the Pac-12 considering going to an eight-game conference schedule?
• Texas A&M is about to make Kyle Field into one big ass stadium.

Gettin’ while the gettin’s good

Two things about this report that Oregon and the NCAA are in agreement that the Ducks have committed a bunch of major violations.  First, the obvious:  no wonder Chip Kelly was ready to take his act to the NFL. 

Finding 6 – Did the school promote an atmosphere of compliance?

This section is difficult to decipher because of redactions, but centers on an NCAA bylaw that says the head coach much promote an “atmosphere of compliance.”

In the report, the school and NCAA agree a violation happened, although the NCAA cautions that the report does not include a finding that [redacted] failed “to promote an atmosphere of compliance.” It does not state if that person is Chip Kelly.

Hmm… maybe there was a Coach Redacted on the Oregon staff.

Second, the surprising.  Somehow the NCAA has managed to look at a program that (1) let Will Lyles run amok with recruits; (2) paid money to Lyles for services that were questionable; (3) allowed somebody to make hundreds of impermissible phone calls over a four-year period; (4) exceeded the limit on the number of coaches allowed to recruit, again over a multi-year period; (5) was essentially left to do as it pleased with regard to “…the use of recruiting and scouting services, giving out school apparel and telephone calls between high school athletes and coaches” and reached this rather startling conclusion:

“There were underlying major violations coupled with failure to monitor violations involving the head coach (2009 through 2011) and the athletics department (2008-2011),” NCAA enforcement staff wrote in the report. “While the violations were not intentional in nature, coaches and administrators of a sports program at an NCAA member institution have an obligation to ensure that the activities being engaged in comply with NCAA legislation.”

The report also outlines two crucial points for the Ducks. First, NCAA enforcement staff said they had “no finding of lack of institutional control and no finding of unethical conduct.”

Can anybody explain how the first sentence and the last sentence there have any logical consistency?  Or should I just skip straight to conspiracy theory and wonder if the NCAA is being deferential to Nike?

You thought I was serious about that?, part two

This story just blows my mind.

Pac-12 coordinator of basketball officials and former NBA referee Ed Rush has been investigated by the Pac-12 for comments made about Arizona coach Sean Miller in meetings that included several Pac-12 referees.

Rush, according to a source within the Pac-12 officiating group, told a group of referees on the Thursday of the Pac-12 tournament in Las Vegas that he would give them $5,000 or a trip to Cancun if they either “rang him up” or “ran him,” meaning hit Miller with a technical or toss him out of the game. Rush then reiterated during a Friday morning meeting, according to one referee in attendance, that officials should take similar action against Miller if he did anything on Friday in the Pac-12 semifinals against UCLA.

“He was emphatic about not dealing with him (Miller),” the ref told CBSSports.com. “He made that perfectly clear.”

And in fact, Rush got his wish.  Miller was rung up for a questionable technical foul in the game against UCLA and then was fined $25,000 by the league for confronting a game official after the game had concluded.

What about Rush, though?  Pac-12 commish Larry Scott is on the mother.

“Based on the review, we have concluded that while Rush made inappropriate comments that he now regrets during internal meetings that referenced rewards, he made the comments in jest and the officials in the room realized they were not serious offers,” Scott told CBSSports.com. “Following our review, we have discussed the matter with Rush, taken steps to ensure it does not happen again, and communicated our findings to all of our officials.”

That’s some joke.

I know this is a basketball matter, but don’t forget that the Pac-12 has a reputation for not giving a shit about what its officials do.  Scott’s gotten credit for cleaning things up on the football side, but there’s certainly more than a whiff of the more things change, the more things stay the same about this matter with Rush.

“He’s a bully,” the referee said of Rush. “He just bullies everyone. That was his whole tenor of the meeting on Friday. We’re all afraid of him. He’s the most respected basketball officiating person on the West Coast and he’s been given all the juice.”

Ed Rush did not wish to comment further, telling CBSSports.com, “Larry’s made a statement. I’m in concert with what he said. We’re going to move on from there.”

If you’re a football coach, what are you supposed to think about how the conference would deal with the next big officiating screw up?

Friday morning buffet

It’s the end of the week.  You must be hungry.

• SOD suspends Deion Bonner indefinitely.  Who’s got better odds on showing up at next year’s spring practice?
• UCLA-USC, getting pissy.
• Gurshall makes the Nuttster sentimentally reminisce.
• Mr. Gillett sees a little 2007 in this year’s Georgia.
• David Ching thinks the triple-option is going to make Rodney Garner rotate more.  Defensive linemen, that is.
• Pimping for his team to make the national title game, Nick Saban is forced to argue that “Two really good teams are going to play in the SEC championship game.”
• That 2012 division title plaque is nice, but Georgia players want more.
• The Hive asks:  Does Georgia hold back its starters for the Tech game?  Hey, if the Jackets back into the ACCCG, does the genius hold back starters for the Georgia game?
• Chris Low says it’s time to drop the whiny talk about Georgia’s schedule.

There’s game prep. And then there’s game prep.

Check out what Washington brought to today’s practice in preparation for this week’s game at LSU.

 

Sure would have loved to have seen the Washington players’ faces when they came to practice and caught that.

Tuesday morning buffet

Indulge yourselves.

• Patrick Garbin explores the topic of Georgia’s returning experience this season.
• David Ching talks to Richt and Grantham about what happens on defense after some of that experience leaves.
• Michael Elkon wonders if 2012 Southern Cal should take 2008 Georgia as a precautionary tale.
• From College Football by the Numbers, a chart of yards per play by down.
• Bill Connelly, on luck and turnovers.
• Ladies and gentlemen, these are your 2012 ESPN college football commentator assignments.  Uncle Ron, I still miss you.
• And Elkon Doug Gillett tries to divine what Georgia’s high preseason ranking may tell us about what’s in store for 2012.

Slive wins again!

The Big Ten and Pac-12 have dissolved their scheduling pact.

The two leagues announced Friday that their pact, which initially called for 12 football games per year, has been called off. The reason: at least four Pac-12 schools were unwilling to agree to mandatory scheduling, ESPN.com has learned. A key sticking point is that Pac-12 teams play nine conference games, while Big Ten teams play only eight. Adding in traditional non-league series like USC-Notre Dame, Stanford-Notre Dame and Utah-BYU, and it makes the scheduling situation tougher for those in the Pac-12.

Needless to say, that takes a ton of pressure off the SEC to adopt a nine-game conference schedule to answer strength of schedule concerns.  In fact, if this remains the status quo, Slive now finds Delany as an ally on that front as they figure out an eligibility formula for the playoff selection committee to use.

My only question is whether Slive’s known all along this is how this would play out.

Tuesday morning buffet

Rise and shine, campers.

• Interesting stat of the day:  Missouri was 5-1 last year when allowing fewer than 300 passing yards.  Of course, that was accomplished as a member of a conference not exactly synonymous with power running offenses.
• Speaking of Missouri, James Franklin is confident he’ll be ready in time for August practice.
• New Auburn defensive coordinator Brian Van Gorder’s full head of hair and distinctive mustache has folks talking on the plains. There have been Twitter parodies, and Photoshop interpretations, as well as comparisons to Magnum P.I. and Napoleon Dynamite’s Uncle Rico. Van Gorder doesn’t know what all the fuss is about;” All my years at Georgia and nobody ever said anything about it.”
• Although some of this piece is over the top, I can’t say I disagree with this sentiment:  “You say the public has wanted a playoff. I say the news media have wanted it most, and if a (playoff) drum gets beat on long enough, the public can end up thinking it’s Mozart.”  Not that it matters at this point.
• Joe at Coaches Hot Seat Blog talks to a long-time Gator fan about his assessment of the 2012 season and gets this response:  “I’m worried boys…..very Damn worried.”
• Meet Zeke Pike, Ted Roof’s lovely parting gift for Auburn University.
• Larry Scott knows why he wants a playoff selection committee:  “Listening to some of my colleagues that have served on the men’s basketball committee and realized we have a better chance as a Pac 12 conference to get a fair shake for the fact that we play a nine game conference schedule, the fact that USC and Stanford play Notre Dame, the fact that we play tough out of conference competition, tougher than the SEC or what the Big 12 is doing, and there’s a chance that humans can give us credit for the strength of schedule and credit for what it takes to be the champion of the Pac 12 conference the way that polls and computers cannot.”  Settling it on the field, for the win!
• Tyler Dawgden gives you reasons why he thinks things are looking up for Georgia’s offensive line.

Friday morning buffet

Nourishment to wrap up the working week:

• Less than eight months into his job, the NCAA enforcement director has decided he’s had enough.
• Bruce Feldman lists his ten schools with the easiest 2012 nonconference schedules.  Yep, Georgia makes an appearance.
• The best thing I can say about the composition of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee is that Michael Adams doesn’t serve on it.
• For all that have complained about the Pac-12′s strength of schedule numbers, Bill Connelly’s got his breakdown of the conference for you right here.
• Some great double talk from Grant Teaff:  “This isn’t something that we have happily done,” said Teaff, referring to the poll being part of the BCS formula the previous 14 years. “We’ve done it because the commissioners wanted us to and the coaches wanted to be part of the selection process and that’s the only reason we’ve done it. There’s no other reason.”   So they’ve wanted it, but they’re not happy about it?  They can’t kill the Coaches Poll fast enough.
• Expect to hear more of this talk as the new postseason regime settles in.
• Bryan McClendon on this year’s group of running backs:  “Probably as far as pure talent-base, probably the most talented that I’ve had in my room ever.”
• Randy Edsall defending himself is everything you’d expect it to be.
• “Jeff Sagarin won’t care,” said Jerry Palm, CBSSports.com BCS analyst. “He doesn’t need the BCS, the BCS needs him.”

One big happy

This has to be a little strange.

Bob Bowlsby has 14 days left as Stanford athletic director, and despite that, there didn’t seem to be a tinge of awkwardness at the Pac-12′s annual summer meetings as conference leaders shuffled past the next Big 12 commissioner in a low-key hotel ballroom on Saturday.

“I’ve got a lot of investment in the Pac-12, so it wasn’t awkward at all. They didn’t even make me go out in the hallway for some of the discussions,” Bowlsby said with a chuckle. “I don’t really know that we were going to talk about anything that I didn’t already know. I don’t know if I spoke up much except when I was called upon.”

Yeah, sure.  In about two weeks you go from being a member of a conference on record wanting a conference champs-only playoff format and a special place in the postseason structure for the Rose Bowl to running a rival conference which is diametrically opposed to the first and unconcerned about the second.  Other than that, it’s no big deal, right?

Of course, that doesn’t mean you’re in complete lockstep with the SEC, either.  That conference’s decision to stick with an eight-game schedule made this inevitable:

“The [Pac-12's] preference is to have conference championships, or at least divisional championships, built into it,” Bowlsby said. “I think all of us agree that some component on strength of schedule is really important. The regular season is so special, but having said that, the early regular season is not as good as it needs to be. We need to encourage people to play games like LSU and Oregon played last year without the risk of taking themselves out of the national championship hunt.

“I think there will be a component of strength of schedule that will be a part of the playoff. I’m quite comfortable in saying that. How we land beyond that will be a topic of debate and discussion.”

That ought to be fun.  Especially if long-time Pac-12 observer Jon Wilner’s depiction of the kind of people calling the shots is correct.

But I believe the SEC/Big 12 announcement created — or, perhaps more accurately, exacerbated — the differences in opinion between the longtime partners (Pac-12 and B1G) and the new couple on the block (SEC and Big 12).

The Pac-12 and B1G are more than Rose Bowl partners. The Pac-12 presidents and chancellors have always viewed the B1G as their peer group and vice-versa, not only on the field but in the halls of academia, with the multi-sport scheduling partnership is further evidence of their connection.

They have always, to put it bluntly, considered themselves to possess more high-minded interests than the Big 12 and SEC latter. (Whether that’s actually the case is not for this discussion.)

There’s no way Scott would mention reprising the Plus-One model if he thought it was off the table for his presidents/chancellors and those in the B1G.

Instead … and this is just my reading, based on Scott’s comment and conversations with league officials over time … I believe the Pac-12 CEOs favor of incremental change to the postseason — change that has minimal impact on the Rose Bowl. In their view, that’s best delivered by the Plus-One.

All of which makes you wonder if Bowlsby had any input at all into the new bowl alliance between the SEC and Big 12.  And who’s gaming who here.

Also, getting back to an earlier point, what about this?

Pac-12 officials have to be think that the playoff model — especially one with the best four teams qualifying (the SEC plan) — further tilts the national championship scales to the southeast, and away from the west coast.

How reasonable a path to the playoff would USC have when it’s playing nine league games and Notre Dame and a quality B1G opponent as part of the scheduling partnership?

Meanwhile, the best SEC teams are playing eight league games and three non-conference cupcakes, if not four?

Gee, can’t we all get along here?

Now Bowlsby, wearing his Big 12 hat, says that the plus-one isn’t a compromise for the two sides to consider.  But if they’re all serious about coming to a resolution before the end of this month, it may be all they have left after three meetings’ worth of sneering and posturing at each other.  One thing’s for sure.  They’re not going to walk away from that extra paycheck a new title game will bring.  Other than that, who knows?  I doubt these guys do.