College football offseason thread

[SpongeWorthy]

The punishment that USC should (and needs to) get isn't about competitive advantage, it's about sending a message that athletic departments are responsible for not letting sleazeballs run around giving their supposed-to-be-amateur athletes cars and houses. And to some extent it has to also be about p.r. for the NCAA. A lot of fans and media, like it or not, are looking at this as the NCAA's last chance to pretend that it at least will give a token effort to promote amateurism. And if they come down really light on USC the NCAA will be absolutely vilified.

 

This is just vague hand waving and meaningless rhetoric. What do "sending a message", "token effort", and "coming down really light" even mean?

 

It is a convenient way of giving yourself wiggle room to criticize whatever penalties come down as being too lenient though.

[NewUserName]

The punishment that USC should (and needs to) get isn't about competitive advantage, it's about sending a message that athletic departments are responsible for not letting sleazeballs run around giving their supposed-to-be-amateur athletes cars and houses. And to some extent it has to also be about p.r. for the NCAA. A lot of fans and media, like it or not, are looking at this as the NCAA's last chance to pretend that it at least will give a token effort to promote amateurism. And if they come down really light on USC the NCAA will be absolutely vilified.

 

This is just vague hand waving and meaningless rhetoric. What do "sending a message", "token effort", and "coming down really light" even mean?

 

It is a convenient way of giving yourself wiggle room to criticize whatever penalties come down as being too lenient though.

 

and lets be honest, no college fb fan really wants the NCAA to really promote amateurism. The just want it enforced at schools who do better then the team they cheer for

[TruffleShuffle]

The punishment that USC should (and needs to) get isn't about competitive advantage, it's about sending a message that athletic departments are responsible for not letting sleazeballs run around giving their supposed-to-be-amateur athletes cars and houses. And to some extent it has to also be about p.r. for the NCAA. A lot of fans and media, like it or not, are looking at this as the NCAA's last chance to pretend that it at least will give a token effort to promote amateurism. And if they come down really light on USC the NCAA will be absolutely vilified.

 

This is just vague hand waving and meaningless rhetoric. What do "sending a message", "token effort", and "coming down really light" even mean?

 

It is a convenient way of giving yourself wiggle room to criticize whatever penalties come down as being too lenient though.

 

and lets be honest, no college fb fan really wants the NCAA to really promote amateurism. The just want it enforced at schools who do better then the team they cheer for

 

i'd like a level playing field. there are rules in place and if the school i root for chooses to abide by those rules, i don't want school to suffer competitively because other schools are looking the other way and letting their athletes get houses and cars and money. if that's going to happen and you're not going to enforce the rules, then just get rid of them altogether and let schools pay athletes whatever they want.

[SpongeWorthy]

The punishment that USC should (and needs to) get isn't about competitive advantage, it's about sending a message that athletic departments are responsible for not letting sleazeballs run around giving their supposed-to-be-amateur athletes cars and houses. And to some extent it has to also be about p.r. for the NCAA. A lot of fans and media, like it or not, are looking at this as the NCAA's last chance to pretend that it at least will give a token effort to promote amateurism. And if they come down really light on USC the NCAA will be absolutely vilified.

 

This is just vague hand waving and meaningless rhetoric. What do "sending a message", "token effort", and "coming down really light" even mean?

 

It is a convenient way of giving yourself wiggle room to criticize whatever penalties come down as being too lenient though.

 

and lets be honest, no college fb fan really wants the NCAA to really promote amateurism. The just want it enforced at schools who do better then the team they cheer for

 

i'd like a level playing field. there are rules in place and if the school i root for chooses to abide by those rules, i don't want school to suffer competitively because other schools are looking the other way and letting their athletes get houses and cars and money. if that's going to happen and you're not going to enforce the rules, then just get rid of them altogether and let schools pay athletes whatever they want.

 

If you were so concerned about a level playing field you'd just have every athlete who met some minimum academic requirement be in a pool of players and we'd have a draft. The entire recruiting process is sort of based on the idea that the playing field isn't level isn't it? That's true whether everyone is following the rules or not.

[NewUserName]

 

i'd like a level playing field. there are rules in place and if the school i root for chooses to abide by those rules, i don't want school to suffer competitively because other schools are looking the other way and letting their athletes get houses and cars and money. if that's going to happen and you're not going to enforce the rules, then just get rid of them altogether and let schools pay athletes whatever they want.

 

We are basically talking about a system where a large percentage of its players could not even attend their school if they were not football players. The schools themselves have already sold out for the money. Though many of them are public institutions the advantages wealthy donors get inside the programs are screaming for unethical situations. Sadly, I have a problem being too judgmental of USC when Michigan St is probably not doing everything by the books either.

[Andy]

The punishment that USC should (and needs to) get isn't about competitive advantage, it's about sending a message that athletic departments are responsible for not letting sleazeballs run around giving their supposed-to-be-amateur athletes cars and houses. And to some extent it has to also be about p.r. for the NCAA. A lot of fans and media, like it or not, are looking at this as the NCAA's last chance to pretend that it at least will give a token effort to promote amateurism. And if they come down really light on USC the NCAA will be absolutely vilified.

 

This is just vague hand waving and meaningless rhetoric. What do "sending a message", "token effort", and "coming down really light" even mean?

 

It is a convenient way of giving yourself wiggle room to criticize whatever penalties come down as being too lenient though.

I don't give a [expletive] what happens to USC. None of it means anything to me. If anything, USC getting off easy would help ND since USC is the only traditional power that's any good on their schedule the next few years. And there'd be some satisfaction at beating USC while following the rules (assuming we ever beat you guys again). I just think the NCAA needs to do something if it's ever going to be taken seriously again, and not just 'probation' or losing one scholarship. Something like what happened to FSU is probably a good benchmark.

 

For God's sake, ND got probation ten years ago because, similar to FSU, one rogue individual unconnected to anyone paid for a few gifts for players. This stuff is a much bigger deal, if only because there's plenty more than one 'rogue individual' involved.

[SpongeWorthy]

I've never heard anyone characterize the ND sanctions as anything but very minor. 2 years probation, 2 total scholarships lost, no postseason ban, no vacated wins.

 

And Kim Dunbar was a registered ND booster.

[Andy]

I've never heard anyone characterize the ND sanctions as anything but very minor. 2 years probation, 2 total scholarships lost, no postseason ban, no vacated wins.

 

And Kim Dunbar was a registered ND booster.

Fine, fair enough. The point is, this stuff is much more widespread than 'minor' sanctions would suggest, if that's the route the NCAA chooses to go.

 

Frankly, USC can break all the rules they want (and probably will, with Kiffin coaching), I just want to beat them. There'd be little satisfaction for me in only beating USC after they were crushed by the NCAA.

[NewUserName]

I've never heard anyone characterize the ND sanctions as anything but very minor. 2 years probation, 2 total scholarships lost, no postseason ban, no vacated wins.

 

And Kim Dunbar was a registered ND booster.

 

and most every non ND fan in the country was outraged that is all they got

[TheVolCub08]

If USC gets in no trouble over this, or even minor trouble (2 scholarships over 2 seasons), what is the benefit to universities and boosters to play by the rules?

 

I don't see the benefit if there is no trouble.

[NewUserName]

If USC gets in no trouble over this, or even minor trouble (2 scholarships over 2 seasons), what is the benefit to universities and boosters to play by the rules?

 

I don't see the benefit if there is no trouble.

 

I havent followed this whole thing that closely, so I dont know what punishment would be proper. All I know about is the Reggie Bush/agent thing. If there is more than that, I haven't followed closely enough to know the details. I am not saying USC should go unpunished. I am just saying that the whole system is begging for these type of things to happen. Since we all are part of this system by being fans, we should be careful that we do not pass judgment on other schools just because they are better at playing this system then our school is.

[TruffleShuffle]

If you were so concerned about a level playing field you'd just have every athlete who met some minimum academic requirement be in a pool of players and we'd have a draft. The entire recruiting process is sort of based on the idea that the playing field isn't level isn't it? That's true whether everyone is following the rules or not.

 

yeah, florida and lsu and ohio st and usc (et cetera) are going to attract more talent because they send players to the nfl, have very good coaches, some are located in places that players want to live for a few years... it's never going to be a level playing field because texas and florida and california produce more high school talent, and so on.

 

ok, i mean that it should be level in terms of the rules in the rule book. like, washington shouldn't lose out on a recruit to usc because usc boosters have promised the recruit's parents a new house and washington's athletic department won't allow that to happen. the rules may not be great but they're there, and should be enforced until they cease to exist.

[stuy119]

If you were so concerned about a level playing field you'd just have every athlete who met some minimum academic requirement be in a pool of players and we'd have a draft. The entire recruiting process is sort of based on the idea that the playing field isn't level isn't it? That's true whether everyone is following the rules or not.

 

yeah, florida and lsu and ohio st and usc (et cetera) are going to attract more talent because they send players to the nfl, have very good coaches, some are located in places that players want to live for a few years... it's never going to be a level playing field because texas and florida and california produce more high school talent, and so on.

 

ok, i mean that it should be level in terms of the rules in the rule book. like, washington shouldn't lose out on a recruit to usc because usc boosters have promised the recruit's parents a new house and washington's athletic department won't allow that to happen. the rules may not be great but they're there, and should be enforced until they cease to exist.

 

Something needs to be done about the promising of jobs to families of recruits.

[fiver]

Rivals top 25 recruiters for the most recent class: http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1049797

 

Cal's Tosh Lupoi is recruiter of the year.

[Derwood]

huge news out of Penn State

 

 

JoePa got Lasik eye surgery and won't need the coke bottle glasses anymore

 

[Jon]

Proposed rule change time:

 

 

The NCAA Football Rules Committee endorsed a proposal Wednesday that penalizes unsportsmanlike conduct as a live-ball foul beginning in the 2011 season.

 

The change would mean, for example, that if a player makes a taunting gesture to an opponent on the way to scoring a touchdown, the flag would nullify the score and penalize the offending team from the spot of the foul.

 

Penalties for dead-ball misconduct fouls (for example, unsportsmanlike behavior after the player crosses the goal line) would continue to be assessed on the ensuing kickoff or the extra point/two point conversion attempt.

 

The proposal to penalize unsportsmanlike acts as live-ball fouls received near-majority support in the committee’s annual rules survey and during discussions at the American Football Coaches Association convention in January.

 

“Our committee firmly believes in the team concept of college football,” said Mike Bellotti, chair of the committee and athletics director at Oregon. “Taunting and prolonged individual acts have no place in our game, and our officials have generally handled these rules well. This is just another step in maintaining our game’s image and reflecting the ideals of the NCAA overall.”

 

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel must approve the proposed change before it can be implemented for the 2011 season.

 

Committee members also took steps at their annual meeting this week in Indianapolis to ensure player health and safety by endorsing a rule requiring all injured student-athletes, including those who exhibit signs of a concussion, to be cleared by an appropriate medical professional (as determined by the institution) before returning to competition.

 

Bellotti said the proposal extends current policies regarding injured players to specifically cover possible concussions.

 

The action comes on the heels of the Playing Rules Oversight Panel’s endorsement of recommendations from the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports to manage concussion issues more effectively. At its meeting in January, PROP instructed playing-rules committees to review their policies in the areas of stopping play for injuries and to consider instituting rules that may further prevent head injuries.

 

“First, the committee strongly believes that the football community is fully behind our main charge of maximizing the protection of the student-athlete,” said Bellotti. “Our committee actions reinforce this stance and extend the positive policies that are already in place.”

 

The committee also reviewed the success of its efforts to curb dangerous contact. Last season, the committee enhanced its rules that cover dangerous contact, specifically collisions that target a defenseless player. During the 2009 season, conferences were mandated to review all fouls of this nature and consider suspensions for egregious violations.

 

“The committee is generally pleased with how the new rule was implemented and enforced, but there will always be the need for improvement and continued focus on this issue,” said Bellotti. “To change behavior, the consequences for dangerous actions must be clear. Therefore, the committee is encouraging more stringent enforcement of this rule and, when warranted, encouraging ejections of players who violate it.”

 

In other news, the committee clarified several equipment issues for 2010, including an issue regarding “eye black.” The committee agreed that if a player elects to wear eye shade, it must be solid black with no words, numbers, logos or other symbols.

 

The committee also took the following actions:

 

* Removed the reference in the rules book requiring a player’s pants to cover the knees at all times. Also, socks no longer have a length requirement, but must continue to be of the same color and general design.

* Elected University of Connecticut coach Randy Edsall as the new chair of the committee. He will succeed Bellotti, whose term as chair ends this year.

* Discussed the possibility of prohibiting an intentional wedge of three or more receiving team players on free kicks. Members will obtain more information by assessing the experience of the National Football League, which introduced such a rule in 2009.

* Agreed to suggest changes to the complicated rules regarding blocking below the waist. The committee will discuss the matter further at the 2011 meeting.

* Recommended that conferences that do not have a pregame warm-up policy use a 10-yard no-player zone between the 45-yard lines beginning 60 minutes before kickoff. This reinforces the Statement on Sportsmanship, which was adopted by the committee for inclusion in the 2009-10 NCAA Football Rules Book. The committee will consider formally adding this to the rules book in 2011.

* Agreed that effective in 2011, television monitors will be allowed in the press box coaches’ booths. The home team has responsibility for insuring that coaches’ booths for both teams have identical television capability.

 

 

Honestly, I think we'll just see fewer taunting penalties called rather than less taunting since officials won't want to nullify a touchdown for just anything.

 

But perhaps bigger is that TV monitors will be allowed in the coaches' booths.

 

Also, when Tebow convinces the NCAA to let him play another season, he'll no longer allowed to write on his eyeblack.

[dew1679666265]

huge news out of Penn State

 

 

JoePa got Lasik eye surgery and won't need the coke bottle glasses anymore

 

That sucks. Those things are awesome.

[Andy]

The taunting rule is a [expletive] joke and is selectively enforced like maybe no other rule in sports besides maybe holding.

[Tracer Bullet]

Proposed rule change time:

 

 

The NCAA Football Rules Committee endorsed a proposal Wednesday that penalizes unsportsmanlike conduct as a live-ball foul beginning in the 2011 season.

 

The change would mean, for example, that if a player makes a taunting gesture to an opponent on the way to scoring a touchdown, the flag would nullify the score and penalize the offending team from the spot of the foul.

 

Penalties for dead-ball misconduct fouls (for example, unsportsmanlike behavior after the player crosses the goal line) would continue to be assessed on the ensuing kickoff or the extra point/two point conversion attempt.

 

The proposal to penalize unsportsmanlike acts as live-ball fouls received near-majority support in the committee’s annual rules survey and during discussions at the American Football Coaches Association convention in January.

 

“Our committee firmly believes in the team concept of college football,” said Mike Bellotti, chair of the committee and athletics director at Oregon. “Taunting and prolonged individual acts have no place in our game, and our officials have generally handled these rules well. This is just another step in maintaining our game’s image and reflecting the ideals of the NCAA overall.”

 

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel must approve the proposed change before it can be implemented for the 2011 season.

 

Committee members also took steps at their annual meeting this week in Indianapolis to ensure player health and safety by endorsing a rule requiring all injured student-athletes, including those who exhibit signs of a concussion, to be cleared by an appropriate medical professional (as determined by the institution) before returning to competition.

 

Bellotti said the proposal extends current policies regarding injured players to specifically cover possible concussions.

 

The action comes on the heels of the Playing Rules Oversight Panel’s endorsement of recommendations from the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports to manage concussion issues more effectively. At its meeting in January, PROP instructed playing-rules committees to review their policies in the areas of stopping play for injuries and to consider instituting rules that may further prevent head injuries.

 

“First, the committee strongly believes that the football community is fully behind our main charge of maximizing the protection of the student-athlete,” said Bellotti. “Our committee actions reinforce this stance and extend the positive policies that are already in place.”

 

The committee also reviewed the success of its efforts to curb dangerous contact. Last season, the committee enhanced its rules that cover dangerous contact, specifically collisions that target a defenseless player. During the 2009 season, conferences were mandated to review all fouls of this nature and consider suspensions for egregious violations.

 

“The committee is generally pleased with how the new rule was implemented and enforced, but there will always be the need for improvement and continued focus on this issue,” said Bellotti. “To change behavior, the consequences for dangerous actions must be clear. Therefore, the committee is encouraging more stringent enforcement of this rule and, when warranted, encouraging ejections of players who violate it.”

 

In other news, the committee clarified several equipment issues for 2010, including an issue regarding “eye black.” The committee agreed that if a player elects to wear eye shade, it must be solid black with no words, numbers, logos or other symbols.

 

The committee also took the following actions:

 

* Removed the reference in the rules book requiring a player’s pants to cover the knees at all times. Also, socks no longer have a length requirement, but must continue to be of the same color and general design.

* Elected University of Connecticut coach Randy Edsall as the new chair of the committee. He will succeed Bellotti, whose term as chair ends this year.

* Discussed the possibility of prohibiting an intentional wedge of three or more receiving team players on free kicks. Members will obtain more information by assessing the experience of the National Football League, which introduced such a rule in 2009.

* Agreed to suggest changes to the complicated rules regarding blocking below the waist. The committee will discuss the matter further at the 2011 meeting.

* Recommended that conferences that do not have a pregame warm-up policy use a 10-yard no-player zone between the 45-yard lines beginning 60 minutes before kickoff. This reinforces the Statement on Sportsmanship, which was adopted by the committee for inclusion in the 2009-10 NCAA Football Rules Book. The committee will consider formally adding this to the rules book in 2011.

* Agreed that effective in 2011, television monitors will be allowed in the press box coaches’ booths. The home team has responsibility for insuring that coaches’ booths for both teams have identical television capability.

 

 

Honestly, I think we'll just see fewer taunting penalties called rather than less taunting since officials won't want to nullify a touchdown for just anything.

 

But perhaps bigger is that TV monitors will be allowed in the coaches' booths.

 

Also, when Tebow convinces the NCAA to let him play another season, he'll no longer allowed to write on his eyeblack.

 

except you'll get those power-tripping officials that will call it seemingly at random just to be dicks.

 

I guess there's a silver lining to Golden Tate leaving early. If all his antics on those 50+ yard TDs got reversed...well, it would have absolutely no effect on CFB as a whole.

[dew1679666265]

Wow.

 

The Texas Longhorns had 13 high school prospects accept scholarship offers during the school's first Junior Day weekend.

[jame.gumb]

Wow.

 

The Texas Longhorns had 13 high school prospects accept scholarship offers during the school's first Junior Day weekend.

 

Yeah, Shipley (who will undoubtedly room with Case McCoy), Evans, Jackson, Hutchins and a few others are good gets, but the success of this class will depend on landing a RB (Brown or Williams, please) and at least two stud OLs (Westerman and Flowers).

[RedFlash]

Wow.

 

The Texas Longhorns had 13 high school prospects accept scholarship offers during the school's first Junior Day weekend.

r

Yawn. Yeah that is not surprise, Texas usually have their classes wrapped up by summer time. So no surprise here.

[jame.gumb]

Wow.

 

The Texas Longhorns had 13 high school prospects accept scholarship offers during the school's first Junior Day weekend.

r

Yawn. Yeah that is not surprise, Texas usually have their classes wrapped up by summer time. So no surprise here.

 

You're right about that typically being the case, but I hope that's not the case this year. Gilbert will be running for his life if they don't grab at least two OL that pan out.

[Jon]

An incoming Vanderbilt recruit was killed in a murder-suicide. Very sad.

 

http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/mceachern-high-school-football-311184.html

[shnsajax]

Wow.

 

The Texas Longhorns had 13 high school prospects accept scholarship offers during the school's first Junior Day weekend.

r

Yawn. Yeah that is not surprise, Texas usually have their classes wrapped up by summer time. So no surprise here.

 

You're right about that typically being the case, but I hope that's not the case this year. Gilbert will be running for his life if they don't grab at least two OL that pan out.

 

The 2009 class was the best in the country for OL. Mason Walters should be healthy this year which will be huge, plus Ashcroft and Porter too and Espinoza from the 2010 class.