I've stayed away from any chatter regarding the NFL Lockout because a) it's hard to understand the issues between all the finger-pointing and whining, and b) no matter what anyone says, it all comes down to the money—the players want more, the owners want to give less.
From a fan standpoint, I can see where changes need to be made—starting with the NFL Draft. It's never made any sense to me that a rookie can come in and make millions as a top 10 pick, based solely on his potential and draft order. That seems monumentally unfair to those players who have actually proven their worth on the field of play and deserve better.
Second, the contract structures have always seemed shady—heavily back-loaded, with the signing bonus being the biggest talking point. Why not offer the bulk of the money in the first few years as opposed to the last few? Oh, that's right, that wouldn't be beneficial to the owners.
And lastly, speaking of those owners, not every franchise is blessed with a billion-dollar stadium, with a Lake Michigan sized big screen, yet many patrons are still subjected to ridiculously high ticket prices and sub-par stadium conditions.
How about the owners start offering a better fan experience for all the money they're given—after all, without the fans, there likely wouldn't be much revenue to speak of.
Which leads me to this point, this issue effects the fans as much, if not more, than it does the players or the owners. It pisses me off that, in all this chatter, both sides are looking for sympathy from the fans in a situation where neither would be relevant if said fans weren't there to support their sport in the first place!
Good grief, get over yourselves!
Here's a question, someone answer it for me if you can, how many Fortune 500 companies are willing to completely open their financial portfolios up to their employees—even the lowest earning ones—and say, 'hey, we're going to base your salary off of these earnings—if that's okay with you'? In a business as money-driven and cutthroat as the NFL, why would players expect owners to be willing to do as much?
And speaking of said owners, I wouldn't go as far as Adrian Peterson and call them slave drivers, but they definitely don't have a problem pimping players for a hefty profit and that needs to stop. One hand washes the other, and if you [the owners] continue to treat your players like rented mules, they will eventually kick you in the gonads—just saying.
The hearing today might reopen the negotiation table, but the damage has already been done as far as I'm concerned. The NFL has likely lost a lot of fans, disillusioned a ton more, and made their profit-earning lives more difficult where ticket sales are concerned because, let's face it, in an economy where recreational money is at a premium, who is going to be willing to support a bunch of free-spending, prima donnas, with a me-complex?
People will come back to the sport once the lockout is over—no doubt about that—but they won't be nearly as enamored of it as they were before because, to put it simply, all these dollars won't have amounted to much sense.
That's some strongly worded rhetoric coming from a guy whom no one even realized Georgia was recruiting. However, Harrow is confident that he will bring every bit the talent and excitement to Georgia as his good friend, Isaiah Crowell.
Harrow's name first began to gain notoriety when, in late January, he was extended an offer. Many assumed that this was an attempt by coach Richt to further persuade Crowell to sign with the Bulldogs—Harrow and Crowell were stated to be very close friends. In truth, however, Georgia was simply keeping their promise to Harrow that if he qualified, they would offer. Here is what Harrow had to say about how it all came to pass, "...they told me they were just waiting on my ACT score. They have seen me play before, but they just needed to wait on that test. When it finally came, they said they would pull the trigger..."(Kipp Adams, Rivals.com).
Take that explanation for what it's worth, but Harrow's play speaks for itself and he should be a nice addition to the team—especially from a speed standpoint. Harrow runs a 4.4 40 and is expected to move from linebacker to defensive back at Georgia. That will definitely give coach Lakatos some needed flexibility to work with this coming season, especially since no one can be certain what will happen with Branden Smith.
Former offensive lineman, Clint Boling, was recently interviewed during a media session at the NFL combine—taking place this week in Indianapolis—and when he was asked to explain how a team that came into the 2010 season so talented ends up 6-7, he had the following to say,
So, basically, Clint had no more of an idea what went wrong than the rest of us.
He mentioned A.J.'s absence and pointed to their inability to meet their "potential", but it didn't look to me like he really had much of a clue what happened in 2010—honestly, he didn't look comfortable answering the question at all. To me that screams loss of control.
The offensive line was by far the most heralded unit on the 2010 squad and, if nothing else, they were expected to remain as effective last season as they appeared to be at the end of 2009. The fact that they were as wildly inconsistent as they were says, to me at least, that there was a definite problem with the message coming from the coaching staff. None of these guys were on the same page and the play on the field suffered as a result.
Hopefully that "disconnect" won't be an issue in 2011.
Let me be the first to say that I am an avid college football fan and I wouldn't trade my Saturday afternoons between August and December for anything. I love the sport and see no inherent issue in that fact.
However, Steven Salzberg (a contributing blogger for Forbes) feels college football is driving academia to its death:
"...The culture of football in American universities is completely out of control. It is undermining our education system and hurting our competitiveness in technology, science, and engineering. If we keep it up, the U.S. will eventually be little more than the big, dumb jock on the world stage—good for entertainment on the weekend, but not taken seriously otherwise.
Too harsh? I don’t think so. I think we need to eliminate football entirely from our universities if we want to maintain our pre-eminent position as the world’s scientific and technological leader."
Oh boy, where to begin? Let's state the obvious here, first: playing, watching, attending, or following college football is a choice. No one is forced to pledge their allegiance to any one team and the mere notion that the sports' presence at a university plays a significant role in the dumbing down of our society is, at best, an irresponsible inference.
The educational system is a wreck all by itself—what with the standardized testing models made necessary by the presence of "No Child Left Behind—and removing college football won't change that one bit.
Quite honestly, if Salzberg's hope is to see the United States "...maintain our pre-eminent position as the world’s scientific and technological leader" then his efforts to make that change should start much earlier than college. He should encourage more reform at the elementary, middle, and high school levels first—as that is where his message is likely to be the most useful.
Mr. Salzberg goes on to imply that,
"...If football disappeared, we could get our entertainment from another sport, as we do every year after the football season ends. But if we stop producing scientists, other countries will make the discoveries that solve the technological, medical, and engineering problems of the future, and that form the basis for great civilizations."
Let me just say that there's a certain amount of ignorance that goes into such a statement because it seems to suggest that sports fans are not unlike drones—sitting around waiting to be entertained by whatever option is presented them.
As a college football fan I say, with confidence, that I don't enjoy all sports with the same passion as I do college football. So, to say that eliminating it is okay because, well, I (and countless others) could just find some other sport to follow is a touch insulting.
Even more, who's to say that simply by ridding society of college football, more scientists would be produced? That seems like a big jump to make. Is he really willing to stand behind the notion that the only reason college students aren't able to reach their maximum potential is because college football exists?
If that's his aim, he's reaching.
Quite honestly, the more I read his points, the more his rant seemed aimed at his current employer—the University of Maryland, than anything else,
"The football-industrial complex has too much power over our universities. Nothing else can explain how we spend so much money and time on football, which contributes almost nothing to students’ education, while academic departments are cutting faculty and staff. The culture of football worship has gotten so out of control that I think the only solution is to get rid of it entirely."
College football is the cash cow at many universities and, regrettably, that means that some academic departments are forced to play second-fiddle to the athletic department. Is that wrong? Perhaps, but those same dollars are often used to upgrade facilities, build better buildings, and pay for programs meant to enhance the academic experience of the student body (via study abroad programs, guest professors, etc.) as well—whether those individuals follow football or not.
Are all universities using their money in an even-handed way? Of course not, but the college football fan isn't writing or cashing those checks, and it's up to each university's president to advocate that the monies earned be divvied up in such a way that it both sustains their athletic programs and uplifts the academic ones.
If that fails to happen, that's not the fault of college football, it's fans, or the athletes that play the sport.
In the end, Mr. Salzberg's ire and concern are coming from a good place, but his anger is misdirected and his message needs tweaking.
The Super Bowl is undoubtedly America's most hyped sporting and television event. Last season's big game, in which the once moribund New Orleans Saints defeated the Peyton Manning-led Indianapolis Colts, drew an audience of more than 106 million people, surpassingM-A-S-Has the most-watched program in US television history.
Because there is so much at stake, whether it's the Lombardi Trophy, or money for FOX, NBC or CBS, every element of the event is magnified. Mass attention is bestowed upon both the players, and non-football performers, for their actions on and off the big stage. In the past, some reveled in it while others found it bothersome, but all of it contributed to a few memorable fiascos that added drama, horror or humor to an already exciting week.
The Bengals entered Super Bowl XXIII as heavy underdogs to the San Francisco 49ers, so the addition of an unnecessary distraction was the last thing they needed. Prior to their last team meeting, before the game, running back Stanley Wilson, who had been suspended for the 1985 and 1987 seasons for cocaine use, told teammates he'd forgotten his playbook and was going to retrieve it. Minutes later he was found on the bathroom floor of his hotel room, debilitated by a spontaneous cocaine binge. Consequently, he was left off the roster by coach Sam Wyche and because it was his third strike with the NFL, he was later banned for life. The Bengals narrowly lost the game, which culminated with the famous Montana-to-Taylor game-winning touchdown.
Barret Robbins is another would-be Super Bowl participant who fell victim to his own demons before the game. The Raiders' Pro Bowl center went missing two days before kickoff and resurfaced Saturday evening, disheveled and disoriented, incapable of playing in the game. His teammates claimed that Robbins went on a drunken binge in Tijuana—located just across the border from Super Bowl XXXVII's host city of San Diego. As a result, coach Bill Callahan left him off the roster and the Raiders offensive line suffered. The Bucs defense sacked 2002 NFL MVP Rich Gannon five times, pressuring him into five interceptions, and stifled the Raiders run game—then finished with a total of 19 yards rushing. Robbins subsequently entered the Betty Ford Center and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. His personal freefall continued during the following years as he was linked to BALCO, tested positive for steroids, and was involved in an incident in which he was shot three times, resulting in an attempted murder charge.
Today, Ray Lewis is recognized as a Super Bowl champ and one of the most accomplished and intimidating linebackers in NFL history. In January of 2000, however, he was viewed by many NFL observers as just another professional athlete turned criminal. After a post-Super Bowl party, he was involved in a bloody fight that resulted in the stabbing deaths of two men, and the accusation that he had a role in their murders. Lewis avoided murder charges and jail time by testifying against his two co-defendants and pleading guilty to obstruction of justice. The episode delivered yet another hit to the NFL's reputation, coming just two months after Ray Carruth was accused of murdering his pregnant girlfriend.
The elaborate Super Bowl XXXIII festivities apparently weren't enough for Falcons Pro Bowl safety Eugene Robinson—he just wanted to engage in the XXX activities. Not a day after he was given the Bart Starr Award for exemplifying "outstanding character and leadership in the home, on the field and in the community," he was arrested for soliciting an undercover police officer for sex. He was bailed out by a team official and played a prominent role in the game, but in a bad way. He surrendered an 80-yard touchdown to Broncos receiver Rod Smith—which placed the Falcons in a two-touchdown hole—from which the Falcons never recovered. They lost the game 34-19.
Trash-talking has long been a tradition of Super Bowl week. It adds to the anticipation of the game, especially if it involves two of the league's most prestigious teams, the Dallas Cowboys and the Pittsburgh Steelers. During the lead-up to Super Bowl XIII, colorful Cowboys linebacker, "Hollywood" Henderson, told reporters that Bradshaw was "so dumb he couldn't spell 'cat' if you spotted him the 'C' and the 'A'." The Steelers quarterback had never been viewed as the sharpest tool in the shed, nor the most emotionally composed person, but he didn't let the zinger get under his skin. In fact, he responded by putting forth the best Super Bowl performance of his career. He posted 318 yards and four touchdown passes, winning the game's MVP honors after the Steelers' victory.
The two weeks that led up to Super Bowl XX were far more entertaining than the Bears' 46-10 thrashing of the Patriots. Bears quarterback Jim McMahon was the center of attention, most notably referring to the women of New Orleans as "sluts" and mooning a camera during a practice before the game. When the camera wasn't fixed on McMahon's mug, it was focused on Patriots Pro Bowl receiver Irving Fryar's two bandaged fingers, which he cut prior to the AFC Championship Game. The injury was initially explained as a freak accident with a kitchen knife, but it was later reported by the Boston Globe that it occurred during a fight between him and his wife. Fryar, a key component of the Patriots' offense and special teams, played anyway, catching the team's lone touchdown.
One of the most dramatic games in Super Bowl history was overshadowed by the halftime show performance of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. The two suggestively performed Timberlake's hit "Rock Your Body"—culminating with Timberlake's tearing off a piece of Jackson's clothing and revealing her partially-covered breast for a split second. Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" created a flurry of controversy and elicited heated debates about indecency in broadcasting and the supposedly corrupted morality of America. The incident resulted in a record $550,000 fine levied by the FCC against CBS. The video above features the moment as it occurred on live television.
Although it didn't garner as much attention as Janet Jackson's performance three-years earlier, Prince's halftime performance angered the slightly more conservative crowd. During his guitar solo for "Purple Rain," his shadow was projected onto a large sheet, forming a silhouette that combined the figure of his body and guitar. Some viewers claimed the instrument appeared phallic and complained to the FCC and CBS. Late night talk show hosts poked fun at the incident, but the minor controversy subsided rather quickly. Now, most people remember Prince's performance as the highlight of an otherwise anticlimactic night. (Note: advance to 9:45 in the above video to see what all the fuss was about).
Garo Yepremian may be one of the most proficient kickers in NFL history, but he's best remembered for his fool-hardy pass attempt during Super Bowl VII. Up 14-0 with just more than two minutes remaining in the game, the Dolphins field goal unit took the field with the intension of sealing the victory. Instead, the attempt was blocked and the ball was immediately retrieved by Yepremian. He then attempted a pass, causing the ball to flutter just above his head, bounce into the air and end up in the hands of Redskins cornerback Mike Bass, who returned it for a touchdown. The Dolphins lead was cut in half in just a matter of seconds. Fortunately for Yepremian, the Dolphins won the game, accomplishing the goal of becoming the first undefeated team in NFL history, and the play became nothing more than a comic relief highlight for NFL Films.
Former Cowboys defensive tackle Leon Lett, like Yepremian, enjoyed a very productive NFL career. And Lett, like Yepremian, will always be remembered for what he did wrong. Lett was responsible for two high profile blunders, the first of which occurred late in Super Bowl XXVII. With the game already in hand in the fourth quarter, Lett scooped up a fumble and ran it back 45 yards. As he neared the goal line, he slowed and held the ball with his arm outstretched in order to showboat, but karma bit him in the butt when Bills receiver Don Beebe ran Lett down and knocked the ball out of his hand before he reached the endzone, causing a touchback. Lett was noticeably embarrassed after the game, admitting that he was looking at the Jumbotron as the play unfolded. But, some people never learn and, at the end of the next season, he cost the Cowboys their Thanksgiving game versus the Dolphins when he attempted to recover a blocked kick in the waning seconds, enabling the Dolphins to regain possession and kick the game winner.
While I can understand the intent behind the action, there is no explanation for this happening. Get a grip, your team lost, move on and stop making your city look like a bunch of sore losers.
This man was here to do his job and, unless wearing ties that support a particular sports team is unacceptable, he had every right to show Green Bay some love.
Wow...there are really no words for how silly some people truly can be.
While Mark Richt is not totally responsible for everything that has gone wrong with Georgia football over the last three years, he is accountable for the overall lack of progress the program has experienced during that time.
On the record, my opinion of Mark Richt is that he's a great football coach who has hit a rough patch. However, off the record, I am an admitted apologist of him and his decisions regarding Georgia football. I want to see him succeed and I want to see those who would otherwise torch him be forced to reconsider their stance.
That said, imagine the glee and disappointment felt upon learning that he took his foot off the gas the last two years—played with his cards a little too close to the vest.
An article, published by The Orlando Sentinel on Christmas day let us take a small peek inside the mind of the much-maligned Georgia football coach, and exposed a flaw that many of the most skeptical fans of the program have suspected for quite some time now—coach Richt had lost his fire.
When asked about the issues the team has encountered over the last few years—particularly in the area of conditioning and overall preparedness—Richt had the following to say,
"I started the season in camp probably not doing enough live scrimmaging and tackling to the ground... Ever since I've been coaching, that's all I've been around. But we've had a couple of years in a row. We had one season, we started the season we had 32 guys injured before the year even got started. And so I'm like, `Alright, this year, I'm going to do what some other teams do. … We were still going to scrimmage, you know have three big scrimmages, but we were going to try to go full speed but not go to the ground or not block below the waist to try to beat everybody to the gate."
While it's understandable that coach Richt would want to be cautious, it would seem that he would have looked elsewhere for answers—why fix what was not broken? The systematic pull-back of intensity was bound to affect the overall attitude of the players and the coaches at some point.
Did he not think his approach would become a factor at some point?
Furthermore, the holes in the S&C program might have been a lot easier to see if the team were approaching scrimmages and practice sessions with more intensity. Perhaps canceling 'two-a-days' and heading to the pool hurt more than some cared to admit—including myself.
Either way, his honesty should be considered as a positive step towards the type of change you want to see at Georgia because it's clear that coach Richt is on the same page as many of his harshest critics—including himself—and hopefully that translates into quick production by the players as spring approaches.
James Franklin has officially been named the head coach of the Vanderbilt University football program, and now the question is what's next?
Franklin offers a bit of insight into what he feels will be his role as the new head coach at Vanderbilt, the type of offensive scheme he plans to run (multiple), and his goals for the immediate future—must get that staff in place in the interview below.
That tweet was, for many, the first official notice that ESPN planned to introduce a new site geared towards the female sports fan. And, while it seemed like a bold move at the time, there were a few who thought it could just as easily be viewed as a condescending—what can espnW.com offer that ESPN, FoxSports, or CBSSports.com don't already? Seriously...what are we (women) getting?
While there is no harm in launching a site that promises to cater more to women who love sports, you have to wonder why any one deems such a site necessary? Honestly, what would be the problem with simply incorporating more women's sports and "human-interest" stories into the ESPN model that is already in place?
By developing a site for women and saying, "here, look what we've done for you", it sends a mixed message.
On the one hand, it's cool that ESPN recognizes there is a market (albeit small) for such a network. But, on the other, it seems a disgrace that the only way they can justify it's presence is by relegating it to some other platform—on the outskirts of their current programming model.
Let me be clear, I don't take issue with ESPN's attempt to make money off an audience that's obviously present and growing. No one else is doing it, and they will make a financial killing if they are the first to succeed at such a venture.
That said, don't sell me crap and call it sugar. There are plenty of high-quality female bloggers on the web who have a voice worth listening to—by both men and women—and most of them aren't trying to offer beauty tips along with box scores.
Hopefully ESPN has truly done their research here, it would be a pity to see this venture fail because someone behind a desk didn't truly realize its potential.
Says Reid, "It bothers me to be honest with you. That bothers me. I see the same thing you're seeing and it bothers me...he does run, but he's still the quarterback and you can't treat him like he's a running back there. That's not what the rules state."
Well, there's just one question to be asked, how on earth is a defensive player supposed to know when Vick plans to run and when he plans to remain in the pocket?
Let's be honest here, Vick is a run threat and most defenses are looking to decapitate him if he even looks like he might be thinking of running—can you expect any less?
Defenses want to send a message to all mobile quarterbacks, be it Vick or someone else, that they plan to make life hell if they choose to leave the pocket. The way to do that is to hit them as hard as possible—as often as possible. That's precisely why, over the course of time, you see less and less quarterback's making a run for it—they can't afford potential injury.
They slide or they run out of bounds, but they don't cruise down the field for 15 or 20 yards—several times a game. Pocket quarterbacks are far more likely to get the calls because they spend the better part of their game being immobile. Aside from taking the snap, making their drop (3, 5 or 7), and throwing the football, they don't go far. The refs can see all of those movements from one location—the pocket.
Vick has made 268 pass attempts this season (24th*). That's a lot less than most of his counterparts—the ones who are most likely to get the calls that Reid is alluding to in his statement. By contrast, he has made 74 rushing attempts (1st among QB's).
Say what you want, but defenses have to respect Vick's prowess as a rusher or they will get beat.
Is Vick a quarterback, yes, but that doesn't mean he should be allowed to run-at-will or be given the same degree of latitude as Drew Brees or Tom Brady—he's viewed differently by defenses and he knows that.
Is that fair, no? But, how does he expect that to be corrected given his ability?
Here's what Vick had to say, "This has been happening for the last four or five weeks, and I haven't complained, I haven't said anything, but it's getting to a point where I'm getting tired of getting up off the canvas...the defense is going to continue to do it because it's not getting called."
We'll see if Reid's pleas end up meaning much for Vick on the football field but, from this chair, it just seems like there isn't much to be said or corrected. Vick's still a runner, defenses know that, and he's going to continue to be a target until he stops being so productive on the ground—period.
What say you?
*Based on quarterbacks who pass the ball at least 14 times per game (NFL.com)
There are three games left this season for the Georgia Bulldogs, and they need to win two of them to be bowl eligible. At 4-5, things have gotten tight for Mark Richt's team and a margin of error that seemed miniscule three-weeks ago seems non-existent now.
While there is chatter that a 5-7 SEC team could make it to a bowl game, thanks to the extra locales added this year, it would be far better to see Georgia actually make it to a legitimate bowl game this year—despite their record—and do so because they actually earned the right.
If you're a fan or follower, you want to see the team finish strong. This weeks matchup against the Idaho State Bengals will be just what the doctor ordered for these tired Bulldogs as that game should offer the team a chance to catch their breath and prepare for the remaining schedule ahead—which includes both Auburn and Georgia Tech.
There can be no guarantees made that Georgia can beat both Auburn (on the road) or Georgia Tech (at Sanford), but if they do, they will have a legitimate shot at seeing their bowl options open up quite nicely. Either way, if we assume they finish with the necessary six wins, here are some possibilities for their postseason.
The Liberty Bowl—December 31, 2010 at 3:30 pm
If Georgia were invited to play in this game, they would likely be matched up against the Conference USA champion—the University of Central Florida—and the payout would be in the neighborhood of $1.7 million.
The game is held in Memphis, TN at Liberty Bowl Memorial Stadium—home of the Memphis Tigers and the Southern Heritage Classic.
The Outback Bowl—January 1, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Don't laugh, the Outback bowl would be a legitimate possibility for a 7-5 Georgia Bulldogs team. The payout is substantially better at $3.3 million, and the location would be amenable to many of the traveling Georgia Bulldog fans—the game is held at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa.
Their most likely opponent would be either Iowa or Illinois.
The Birmingham Bowl—January 8, 2011 at 12:00 pm
The formerly-named Papajohns.com Bowl pits the No. 8 or 9 finisher in the SEC against the Big East's No. 5 finisher. The payout is a paltry $900,000, and the location is Birmingham, AL.
As of now, it would seem that the expense of traveling to this game would hardly be worth the trouble. However, it is doubtful that Georgia would dismiss any bowl bid they are offered this season, regardless of the amount of prestige that is, or is not, attached.
The Music City Bowl—December 30, 2010 at 6:40 pm
There seems to be a good bit of buzz surrounding the possibility of Georgia heading to this one. The Music City Bowl is held in Nashville, TN and the Bulldogs last appearance there was 2001—when they lost 20-16 to Boston College.
The Chick-Fil-A Bowl—December 31, 2010
A win over Auburn would, at least, place Georgia in the conversation for this one. It would be a welcome gift considering most fans, at this point, don't think Georgia has a chance of staying within striking distance of the Auburn Tigers this season—not with Cam Newton patrolling the field.
However, if they can steal one from The Plains, they could be an attractive candidate for the Chick-fil-A bowl committee as the game would be close to Athens, GA and Georgia fans, historically, have traveled very well to this venue.
Verron Haynes is a former running back for the Georgia Bulldogs. He solidified his place in Bulldog lore with the well-known "P-44 Haynes" play...you know the one:
Yeah, that one.
The play that started the run of wins and championships for Mark Richt at Georgia. The play that, arguably, marks the moment the tide changed in Athens, GA and Georgia football went from perennial mediocrity to national contenders.
Well, Mr. Haynes has a message for all the people who decided to call for Mark Richt's head when the chips were down.
He, along with many other former players, didn't take too kindly to the shots that coach Richt, the program, and the team took during the four-game losing stretch. So, he had this to say to the bandwagon jumpers who are now back to being "loyal" to the red and black:
This site doesn't normally touch on Major League Baseball. The 'Lady' knows her limits where the baseball diamond is concerned. So, there will be no breakdowns offered here.
That said, as a casual follower of the sport and an, admitted, Atlanta Braves fan, if you had said six-months ago that the Rangers and the Giants would be in the World Series, there would have been subtle sounds of laughter all-around.
The person who says they saw this coming is a liar...and, yes, the latter would be said to their face.
On the good side, it's nice to see that the Yankees and the Phillies, along with their equally entitled and arrogant fans, were sent home packing by teams who many felt were "inferior". Can't say that wasn't a nice bit of upside to that story.
That said, the Rangers and the Giants sure weren't the matchup the MLB folks were hoping for this season—that New York/Philadelphia market likely would have been much more lucrative for the advertisers and a touch more interesting for those who don't follow the game as closely as others.
Still, congrats to both teams for doing what not many thought possible. And, to think, they both did it minus any real offensive superstars (No Barry. No A-Rod. No Problem).
Remember all that chatter about Steve Spurrier's Gamecocks suffering a letdown this week over the Kentucky Wildcats, after defeating the former No. 1 Alabama Crimson Tide in Columbia last week? Well, that came to fruition tonight as the Kentucky Wildcats and, new head coach, Joker Phillips, got their first signature win over a ranked opponent.
The Gamecocks were leading the game with less than 1:00 minute to go in the fourth-quarter, but then Kentucky quarterback, Mike Hartline connected with Randall Cobb for a 24 yard touchdown reception—followed by a two-point conversion—making it 31-28 Kentucky with less than :15 seconds to play.
Stephen Garcia took over on his own 31 but, two big completions to both D.L. Moore and Tori Gurley placed the Gamecocks within striking distance of a field goal. Then, the unthinkable happened, Spurrier used his final timeout to draw up a play for one last shot at the end zone—he likely should have just gone for the tie but, for whatever reason, he decided to try and go for the win instead.
His gamble ended up being a poor one as Stephen Garcia was intercepted in the end zone—Wildcats win:
So close...yet, so very far away.
Nice win for the Cats' though, after the close loss to Auburn last week, they were bound to come out on the winning end of one of these eventually.
The head coach at Temple University, Al Golden, has the Owls on the cusp of relevancy. After two winning seasons, their first bowl appearance since 1979 (in 2009), and a hot start (the Owls are currently 3-0), Golden has his program standing at the threshold of college football legitimacy.
After last weeks surprising win over Big East power, Connecticut, the Owls head into Saturday's match-up against Penn State with a lot of confidence—are the Owls for real? This game will surely be the one that answers that question.
Michigan State head coach, Mark Dantonio, is on the mend but his team will retake the field this weekend—hoping to remain undefeated.
Florida coach, Urban Meyer, will add his name to an exclusive group of head football coaches if/when he reaches the 100-win mark over the next four games. He would be the fastest coach, in more than 50 years, to reach the milestone—boy...it sure does pay to stay in-state and play those pansies, eh Urban?
Randall Cobb and the Kentucky Wildcats will look to get their program-defining win in The Swamp on Saturday night. Said John Clay, of KentuckySports.com,"You might expect a little more respect for a program that has been to four consecutive bowl games. You might expect a little more respect for a program that won on the road at Auburn and Georgia last year, that boasts a Randall Cobb, that competes in the SEC."—with all due respect to what the Wildcats were able to do last year, their schedule this year has been a joke. If they win at Florida, then they should join the conversation, but they are hardly worth a top 25 nod after beating a couple cupcakes and a pansy.
And speaking of Randall Cobb, he's mighty sensitive where his team is concerned. Red Lobster has lost his business for a little while after a hostess, unwittingly, dissed the Wildcats football program—you can hardly blame her, it was an honest mistake.
Kenny McKinley has died. The cause of death has not been officially released but speculation is that it is the result of a suicide.
McKinley was a member of the Denver Broncos at the time of his death, drafted by the team in the fifth-round of the 2009 NFL Draft.
However, fans of the SEC remember him best as being a standout wide receiver for the South Carolina Gamecocks. He, along with current Minnesota Viking, Sidney Rice, formed a talented duo for Steve Spurrier from 2005 to 2006.
After Rice's departure, McKinley continued to light up the field with his big play ability and sure-hands. He never let up, despite his tussle with injuries in his final season, and by the time he closed the chapter on his college career, he held numerous records.
He was not expected to be a major factor in the Bronco's offense this season but, said McDaniels, "
"Kenny had a promising future on the football field, but more importantly, he was a great teammate whose smile and personality could light up the room".
McKinley was only 23-years old.
McKinley's former coach, Steve Spurrier, was surprised to hear the news of his death. Spurrier stated that McKinley was present at the Gamecocks' game against Georgia a couple weeks ago and seemed in good spirits. Spurrier was visibly shaken by the news and seemed genuinely perplexed at what might have prompted McKinley to take such a drastic measure. (h/t TheBigSpur)
Highlights from McKinley's 2008 season with the Gamecocks:
Mckinley speaks on his future with the Denver Broncos shortly after being drafted in 2009.
Lance Briggs, a professional football player for the Chicago Bears, has recently come under fire for some comments he made regarding the issue of female reporters conducting post-game interviews in male locker rooms. Said Briggs:
"I don't think women should be allowed in the locker room...A lot of times I'm asking the media to wait until I'm dressed" (Grizzly Detail, 9/16/10)
His comments have come on the heels of the Inez Sainz incident which, unless you have been hiding in a galaxy far, far, away, you have heard about in much detail by now. If not, feel free to read about it here.
However, the purpose of this article isn't to support her efforts nor is it to spew vitriol at Lance Briggs for his statements...there's plenty of hand-wringing and political toe-tapping going on about both of those issues already.
The point of this article is to ask this simple, yet completely glossed over, question: are men allowed into the locker rooms of female sports teams?
In all of the furor over the treatment of Inez Sainz, treatment that was immature but not unexpected—considering the circumstances—people seem content to leave out the fact that male reporters are not allowed into the dressing rooms of professional female athletes either (at least not to my knowledge).
And, why aren't they?
The obvious, short-sighted, is likely because it is assumed that women have a better ability to control their hormones and their actions than men would if put in a similar situation. Women wouldn't be as likely to give in to their urge to stare, comment, or objectify the person standing, half-naked, in front of them, as a man might be.
Translation: men are dogs and, if taken off the leash, they will make a mess of such a situation.
While the argument could be considered a valid one, based in part on the comments made both in the media (Rush Limbaugh called Sainz "bootylicious") and on some message boards, regarding the Inez Sainz issue, it doesn't change the fact that there is a double-standard in play—most women would not be comfortable allowing a male reporter to interview them, if the only piece of clothing they had on was a towel.
Should women be allowed to have access to the players? Absolutely! However, why is it so important that the locker room be a part of that access? Isn't there just as much information to be gleaned from the post-game press conference?...No?
Oh, yeah, that's right, it's impossible to truly get a feel for the emotional distress or disappointment a player is feeling if he has too much time to compose himself. The viewing public wants the gritty stuff—the reality bite. The viewing public wants to be able to see things like this:
Uh-huh...because that interview had so much to do with the game that was played.
Listen, this is a blog written by, and from the perspective of, a lady sportswriter so, I get it, I do. That said, I also know that this is an issue that can easily be solved by allowing no reporters in the locker room whatsoever.
Why does anyone, male or female, have to be there? There are certainly more than a handful of men who share Lance Briggs' desire to be able to shower, relieve, and dress himself without some media type shoving a mic in his face.
Even more, if the need for a quick sound bite is the driving force behind conducting an interview in such an informal and intrusional way, then there is reason to believe that the opportunity for that is every bit as probable in the conference room—just ask Jim Mora, Dennis Green, Allen Iverson, or, my personal favorite, Mike Gundy how easy that can be:
No locker room access needed for that gem, folks—just saying.
Women are worthy of equal treatment—across the board—no one is arguing that point here. However, is this really the issue that women want to tout as important? And, if so, are you preparing for the day when the inevitable, yet obvious, question is finally asked about men being allowed to do the same?
Be prepared because the day that question gets asked with more conviction is not only coming, but it's here, and it's valid—whether you think so or not.
Found this video on YouTube (h/t ghostoferkrussell who always finds some great clips). It's an interview by Bill Hartman with Herschel Walker who, at the time, was just a 17-year old prospect with a decision to make about where to spend the next four-years of his academic life.
The most intriguing part was the very beginning of the report where it was alleged that Walker's might have been bought—he was shown driving a shiny new Pontiac Trans Am. As it turn out, his daddy bought him the car, but the mere mention of it shows just how far back the idea of questionable recruiting tactics actually goes.
Of course, Herschel eventually chose to sign with the Bulldogs, but not before national signing day had long since come and gone:
My favorite line was the one offered by Walker's teammate, Brill Jenkins, who said "He loves his homework...I think he would give up football, give up sports, just to do his classwork". Classic. I don't know that No. 34 valued the paper and pen over the gridiron glory, but he certainly was one heckuva running back...and dancer (h/t ghostoferkrussell):
Yesterday, we looked at the quarterback match-up between Aaron Murray and Chris Masson. If you missed it, you can find it here. Today we will take a snapshot of the Cajuns' defensive scheme and how it operates.
The Cajuns run a multiple 4-3 defense. It's a very physical, in-your-face, scheme that depends greatly on the intelligence and athletic ability of its linebackers. It was installed in the spring of 2004 and is currently being coached by the Cajuns defensive coordinator, Kevin Fouquier.
In this scheme, there is a big emphasis on the linebackers ability to react first and read second. If that sounds funny, it's not, anticipation is an important element to executing this scheme effectively. It's important to be quick afoot and have the ability to adjust to each play as it progresses, rather than reacting after the snap.
That said, it can be a good way to force turnovers because, if your players can adapt quickly to the snap of the ball, then they have a genuine opportunity to blow plays up, force fumbles, and foster interceptions.
The reason for this is because the plays are moving so quickly and, seemingly, with such chaos, until the quarterback can be forced into panic mode. If he's not prepared for it, he will often forget to advance to the second or third progression in an offensive play. Often, this will lead to an ill-advised pass to a well-covered receiver.
Furthermore, from a running backs standpoint, it can be frustrating to see the lanes seal up so quickly. So, unless a running back is able to make his cuts and create new lanes of his own, when one closes up, he could be met by a big wall of defenders—sometimes forcing a fumble in the process.
On the other hand, there are disadvantages to running this scheme as well.
For one, it allows a lot of ground yards if the linebackers cannot recover quickly from a poor read. Add to that, if the front four fails to do a good job sealing off lanes and closing gaps, it's possible to see a decent runner rattle off four-to-six yards before they are apprehended.
Furthermore, the secondary plays very conservatively in the scheme the Cajuns run, so there is little man-to-man coverage. They are constantly guarding against the big play but are vulnerable to plays underneath that can lead to easy scores or big chunks of yardage by speedy receivers.
The Cajuns have a stellar group of linebackers, a seasoned secondary, and a decent front four. They know the system and finally started making small strides in executing it last season, but there is still work to do. The key for Georgia will be to use the strength of their offensive line to keep the running lanes open.
If quarterback, Aaron Murray, can control the tempo, keep the linebackers guessing, and make smart adjustments, Georgia should be able to perform successfully against the Cajuns.
That said, he only had one word to describe the SEC when asked, on this CBS SEC Preview Show, what he thought of the conference that, as of now, is the toast of the BCS..."It's Aggressive".
