2011 another great year for college football

Originally Posted by DoubleJs07

Originally Posted by 5am6oody72

laugh.gif
@ Edsall but I can't fault him for it. IMO if he does that it's probably because he'll be forced to because all the in state kids know how terrible that program is, not a lack of talent. Just in the recent recruiting cycles there are kids like Diggs, Cyrus Jones, Wes Brown, Kendall Fuller, Stefon Colbert, Darius Jennings, Jelani Jenkins, Tavon Austin etc etc. Winning is part of it, but in the case of Jennings and Phelps MD lost them to UVA. A lot of kids don't wanna stay local and since MD wasn't at all successful when they were growing up they don't really have much loyalty to them at all. Hell, kids from that area had a better chance of playing for Locksley at New Mexico than the Terps
laugh.gif
Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying....and they're trying to fix things with the big UA push and make the facilites/unis appealing to recruits.  Trying their hardest to become like Oregon of the East coast with the UA connection (and ya...they got a looooong way to go).  But it's a start.  Where they messed up was with the hire of Edsall.  Would things have been that bad had Fridge stayed on?  With him being fired, everyone thought Leach would have been the guy.  Who knows...maybe Edsall will get things turned around.  Personally, I don't see it happening as I believe he'll get the ax within the next 2 years. 
Click to expand...
Yea I totally understand what they've been trying to do which is why I was all the more surprised they didn't hire Leach. I was rooting for him to get that job but they totally blew it IMO. Edsall was a wimpy hiring. He's not an awful coach but he's not an upgrade over Friedgen AT ALL. If they weren't going to go all in they might as well have just kept Friedgen; he did go 9-4 last year. 
 
Originally Posted by JUS3

Originally Posted by zs05wc

Originally Posted by henz0

Question: If this BAMA/LSU game ends up as good as its being hyped up to be will we see a rematch in the Championship game?? Especially if Cowboys & Stanford lose??
Click to expand...


No one wanted a rematch of Michigan/osu so we wouldn't get a rematch of this game
laugh.gif
. Jk. But if ok state and Standford both lost wouldnt that mean Boise would be in the title game? Or would a 1 loss team beat them out?
Click to expand...
I'd wanna see what Kellen can do against Bama or LSU, but I think we'd get a rematch
grin.gif
Click to expand...

Even if they dont win the division..?
 
laugh.gif
MA81, we passed yall by!
But it was Epic!
That Run u went on was so frustrating

laugh.gif
And I used to have Stat heated at his WVA defense !! Hahaaha


laugh.gif
Mike
 
Originally Posted by GUNNA GET IT

UGAs SEC Wins have come against teams who are a combined 5-22...
Click to expand...

299926_10150315718922260_528762259_8476635_243161764_n.jpg

yo, Rock..! give tha lil _ his jewelry back..
Spoiler [+]
298760_10150342868712260_528762259_8633200_769268015_n.jpg
Georgia coach Mark Richt is all about sending out the right vibes for his Bulldogs. 

Last week, he had his guys singing "Rocky Top" before Tennessee's game with South Carolina. This week, could he be sneaking off to learn how to "Call the Hogs" to help Arkansas get a win over South Carolina Saturday? 

"I gotta learn how to do that," Richt said. "I was trying to do it. I know it has something to do with [saying] "sooie," but I gotta learn how to do that right. If I do, I might try to get the boys to be ready to cheer on Saturday night." 
Click to expand...



319590_10150316801362260_528762259_8481883_1107701318_n.jpg


take yo aaa to sunday school wit your koombaya _
 
Interesting read... Bigger programs don't penalize for failed drug tests nearly as hard as other schools. Not surprising.
Spoiler [+]
McMurphy's Law: Inconsistency epitomizes drug policies


By Brett McMurphy
CBSSports.com College Football Insider
Nov. 1, 2011Tell Brett your opinion!
PrintEmail a FriendFacebook26Twitter115RSSShare
img15947492.jpg

Spencer Ware was one of three Tigers suspended for testing positive. (US Presswire)
Substance abuse policies for college football programs are like the uniforms each team wears: They all vary to some degree and no two are exactly alike.

A study of the nation's substance abuse policies at the automatic qualifying BCS conference schools indicates how the schools' different philosophies in dealing with and suspending multiple-time drug users.

Six schools -- Auburn, Duke, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State and North Carolina -- suspend a football student-athlete for six games after a second positive test, while four schools -- Clemson, Ole Miss, Purdue and UCLA -- don't suspend a student-athlete until a third-positive test.

As much as those policies vary, at least, they specify the punishments.

The length of suspension for a student-athlete with multiple positive tests at LSU, Louisville, Nebraska, Texas and Virginia are determined by the head coach and/or athletic director.

The substance abuse policies at Florida State, LSU, Oregon, Oregon State and Texas A&M also are subjective -- and in some instances just flat out vague -- in defining the penalties for student-athletes that have multiple positive drug tests.

With no definitive length of suspension determined, the coaches and/or athletic directors leave open the very real impression that their decisions could be influenced by that week's opponent.

More on College Football
Columns
Dennis Dodd
With John Chavis in charge, the LSU defense never rests. Read More>>
Bruce Feldman
Alabama's linebackers are the strength of the defense. Read More>>
Related links
Pregame: No. 1 LSU at No. 2 Alabama
Doddcast: Other topics besides LSU-'Bama
Eye on College Football: More updates
For instance, LSU's policy indicates a second positive test results in "up to 15 percent" suspension of games. Based on LSU's policies a multiple drug user could either be not suspended or suspended for one or two games.

LSU's Tyrann Mathieu, Tharold Simon and Spencer Ware were suspended one game for "testing positive for synthetic marijuana," the Times-Picayune reported.

LSU chancellor Michael Martin told USA Today the players' reinstatement would be determined by athletic director Joe Alleva.

"The athletic director will ultimately make the decision [and] he'll consult with me," Martin told USA Today. "Fortunately for them and the team, they have two weeks to get their act together because we have a bye week. They have been directed to some counseling, and they will now be subject to greater scrutiny for the remainder of their time at LSU."

After missing one game, LSU's players were reinstated and will play Saturday against No. 2-ranked Alabama in a game with huge national title implications.

Other schools, however, have opted for stricter substance abuse policies.

In the past year, Florida not only strengthened its substance abuse policy, but it now has different punishments for student-athletes that test positive for different drugs. Previously, it took five positive tests for a recreational drug for a student-athlete to be dismissed from Florida. That policy was changed to dismissal after a fourth positive test for marijuana or synthetic marijuana.

However, a student-athlete who tests positive for any recreational drug (other than marijuana) is suspended for six games (50 percent of regular-season contests) after a first positive and is dismissed after a second positive.

The NCAA does not conduct tests for recreational drugs (such as marijuana, heroin, cocaine and ecstasy) but only for performance-enhancing drugs/steroids. The penalties are the same for each NCAA member institution: a first positive test for steroids is a one-year suspension; a second positive test ends a student-athlete's NCAA eligibility for rest of his career.

DRUG POLICY SUSPENSION LENGHTS

The minimum required number of games a student-athlete is suspended for each of the 68 automatic-qualifying BCS conference football programs, using next year's conference affiliations, based on a (1) first-positive test for recreational drugs; (2) second-positive test; (3) third-positive test; (4) fourth-positive test and (5) fifth-positive test. Drug policies are obtained through public records requests or from the school's official website.

ACC

Boston College: (1) none; (2) two weeks; (3) one year.

Clemson: (1) none; (2) none; (3) dismissal. Note: Clemson policy indicates athlete must perform 15-30 hours of community service for a first positive and a minimum of 30 hours for a second positive.

Duke: (1) none; (2) 50 percent of games; (3) dismissal.

Florida State: (1) none; (2) unspecified suspension; (3) dismissal. Note: length of suspension for second positive determined by the school's substance abuse committee and "influenced by the length of the season."

Georgia Tech: (1) none; (2) 10 percent of games; (3) one year; (4) dismissal.

Maryland: (1) none; (2) two weeks; (3) one year.

Miami: (1) one game; (2) two games; (3) dismissal.

North Carolina: (1) none; (2) 50 percent of games; (3) dismissal.

N.C. State: (1) none; (2) 20 percent of games; (3) dismissal.

Virginia: (1) none; (2) suspension determined by head coach; (3) indefinite suspension.

Virginia Tech: (1) 10 percent of games; (2) 33 percent of games; (3) one year; (4) dismissal.

Big East

Cincinnati: (1) 10 percent of games; (2) 20 percent of games; (3) dismissal

UConn: (1) none; (2) 30-to-60 days; (3) one year; (4) dismissal

Louisville: (1) none; (2) suspension, (3) suspension, (4) one year. Note: length of suspension for second positive determined by coach or athletic director; third suspension must be longer than second suspension.

Pittsburgh: Although a public university, Pittsburgh is not required to respond to public record requests and refused to provide policy.

Rutgers: (1) none: (2) two weeks; (3) one year; (4) dismissal. Note: athlete with a first positive may be suspended up to two weeks at athletic director's discretion.

South Florida: (1) none; (2) 20 percent of games; (3) dismissal.

West Virginia: (1) none; (2) 10 percent of season; (3) dismissal. Note: athlete with a first positive is suspended an indefinite amount of times until they produce a negative test result.

Big Ten

Illinois: (1) none; (2) 1/12th of regular-season games; (3) 1/4th of regular season games; (4) one year.

Indiana: (1) none; (2) one game; (3) dismissal.

Iowa: (1) none; (2) 10 percent of games; (3) dismissal.

Michigan: (1) none; (2) 10 percent of games; (3) one year.

Michigan State: (1) none; (2) 30 days; (3) one year.

Minnesota: (1) none; (2) 20 percent of games; (3) one year.

Nebraska: (1) none; (2) suspension determined by head coach; (3) dismissal.

Ohio State: (1) none; (2) two weeks; (3) one year.

Penn State: (1) none; (2) seven days; (3) one year; (4) dismissal.

Purdue: (1) none; (2) none; (3) 10 percent of games; (4) "may be dismissed" with athletic director making decision.

Wisconsin: (1) none; (2) 30 days; (3) dismissal.

Big 12

Baylor: (1) one game; (2) 10 percent of games plus one game; (3) dismissal.

Iowa State: (1) none; (2) 10 percent of games: (3) dismissal.

Kansas: (1) none; (2) whichever is less: two games or 10 percent of games; (3) dismissal.

Kansas State: (1) none; (2) 10 percent of games; (3) dismissal.

Missouri: (1) none; (2) seven days; (3) dismissal.

Oklahoma: (1) none; (2) one game; (3) "expulsion from athletic program." Note: Athlete with three positives may be reinstated "upon completion of a qualified drug rehabilitation program."

Oklahoma State: (1) none; (2) 10 percent of games; (3) 50 percent of games; (4) dismissal.

Texas: (1) none; (2) "if suspended, length of suspension determined by athletic director;" (3) dismissal.

TCU: (1) none; (2) "may include at least" one-year suspension; (3) dismissal.

Texas Tech: (1) none; (2) one game; (3) dismissal.

PAC-12

Arizona: (1) none; (2) 10 percent of games; (3) one year; (4) dismissal.

Arizona State: (1) none; (2) 25 percent of games; (3) dismissal.

Cal: (1) none; (2) two weeks; (3) one year.

Colorado: (1) none; (2) 20 percent of games; (3) one year.

Oregon: (1) none; (2) length of suspension, if any, not indicated; (3) dismissal.

Oregon State: (1) none; (2) length of suspension, if any, not indicated; (3) dismissal. Note: Policy says student "may be expelled" for second positive, but doesn't indicate a specific length if suspended.

Utah: (1) none; (2) 25 percent of games; (3) dismissal.

UCLA: (1) none; (2) none; (3) one game; (4) dismissal.

Washington: (1) none; (2) 15 percent of games; (3) one year; (4) dismissal.

Washington State: (1) none; (2) 30 days; (3) one year.

SEC

Alabama: (1) none; (2) 15 percent of games; (3) one year; (4) dismissal.

Arkansas: (1) none; (2) 10 percent of games; (3) 50 percent of games; (4) dismissal.

Auburn: (1) none; (2) 50 percent of games; (3) dismissal.

Florida: For marijuana/synthetic marijuana: (1) none; (2) 10 percent of games; (3) 20 percent of games; (4) dismissal. For all other drugs: (1) 50 percent of games; (2) dismissal.

Georgia: (1) 10 percent of games; (2) 50 percent of games; (3) dismissal.

Kentucky: (1) 10 percent of games; (2) 50 percent of games; (3) dismissal.

LSU: (1) none; (2) "up to 15 percent of games;" (3) one year.

Ole Miss: (1) none; (2) none; (3) three games.

Mississippi State: (1) none; (2) 50 percent of games; (3) one year; (4) dismissal.

South Carolina: (1) none; (2) 25 percent of games; (3) dismissal.

Tennessee: (1) none; (2) 10 percent of games; (3) dismissal.

Texas A&M: (1) none; (2) "possible suspension;" (3) possible dismissal.

Note: Private universities not required to respond to public record requests that would not voluntarily provide drug policy: Notre Dame, Northwestern, USC, Stanford, Syracuse, Vanderbilt and Wake Forest. However, Northwestern coach Pat Fitzgerald told CBSSports.com his school has a substance abuse policy but did not disclose the specifics.
 
Originally Posted by GUNNA GET IT

What the... ?

You too high for me to even comprehend tonite
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
Click to expand...


This is me everyday. I thought I was down with the movement. Then I read Cardo's posts. #I'llneverchange #alwayslame
 
Jump To Navigation


[article=""][h1]The Beginning of the End for the NCAA[/h1][h3]Compensating players was just the start — the entire system is about to collapse[/h3]By Charles P. PiercePOSTED NOVEMBER 1, 2011
ncf_g_bama_fans_576.jpg
Kevin C. Cox/Getty ImagesIn June of 1970, Bill Veeck, a renegade baseball owner, took the stand for the plaintiff in the case of Flood v. Kuhn, in which St. Louis Cardinal outfielder Curt Flood essentially sued major league baseball to break the power of the "reserve system," a pernicious practice that bound a player to one team for as long as that one team wanted to keep him. It was this system of, at best, involuntary servitude on which the business of baseball had remained a rigged game in favor of management for over a century.

Veeck thought the system doomed. Sooner or later, he believed, a judge, or somebody else in authority that didn't give a damn about sitting in the owner's box for Opening Day, was going to get a good look at the system. That person probably then would spend four or five minutes laughing so hard that they nearly fainted, and then that person would throw out the whole system for the fraud that it was. Better to eliminate the reserve system gradually, Veeck testified. (He recommended a system of seven-year contracts, much like the system that had prevailed at one time in Hollywood.) That way, he thought, the owners could control the transition between the reserve system and whatever came next. Veeck also pointed out that the reserve system, as it was practiced at the time, ran counter to some cherished American beliefs about the country's values.

"I think it would certainly help the players and the game itself to no longer be one of the few places in which there is human bondage," Veeck testified, according to the account in Brad Snyder's A Well-Paid Slave, an exemplary book on the Flood case. "I think it would be to the benefit of the reputation of the game of baseball … At least, it would be fair."

The owners didn't listen. Veeck was not one of them. He had a predilection for putting midgets on the field. And black people. And, as far as the authoritarian exercise of whiteness went, baseball management made the Politburo look like the O'Jays. They ignored Veeck. They even beat the Flood case in the Supreme Court. Then, in 1975, an arbitrator named Peter Seitz threw out the reserve clause and free agency fell onto baseball all at once and everywhere. The system utterly collapsed and, just as Veeck had predicted, it was not a soft landing.

Something like that has happened over the last 20 or 30 years in regard to college athletics. Every few years, some angry, stick-waving prophet would come wandering into the cozy system of unpaid (or barely paid) labor and start bellowing about how the essential corruption in the system wasn't that some players got money under the table, but that none of them were allowed to get any over it. Sooner or later, these people said, the system would collapse from its own internal contradictions — yes, some of these people summoned up enough Marx through the bong resin in their brains from their college days to make a point — and the people running college sports had best figure out how to control the chaos before it overwhelmed them. Nobody listened. Very little changed, except that college sports became bigger and more lucrative, an enterprise of sports spectacle balanced precariously on the fragile principle that everybody should get to make money except the people doing the actual work.

Now, though, the indications are that the reckoning is finally here. In its role as the protector of the lucrative status quo, the NCAA is under assault from a number of different directions, and the organization seems to be cracking from the pressure. Just in the past two years, we have seen the lawsuit brought by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon in which O'Bannon and several other former NCAA athletes challenged the NCAA's right to profit from their "likenesses" in perpetuity. Earlier this month, legendary center Bill Russell joined that suit. In the October issue of the Atlantic, historian Taylor Branch took a mighty whack at the entire system and made a case for paying college athletes on the grounds of simple fairness. Branch's credentials as a chronicler of the civil rights movement gave his critique a profound resonance in places where nobody much cares if Alabama beats LSU this weekend. Yesterday, Congressman Bobby Rush of Illinois, a former Black Panther who once escaped being murdered by the Chicago Police Department through the expedient of not being at home to get shot, and still the only man to defeat Barack Obama head-to-head in an election, likened the NCAA to Al Capone, which is not a compliment, not even in Chicago. And, perhaps most significant of all, a petition is being circulated by current football and basketball players requesting (politely) a cut of the vast ancillary revenues that the colleges and the NCAA are raking in.

On October 27, undoubtedly in response to all of this, and in an obvious attempt to keep order within the help, the NCAA voted to allow its member conferences to decide whether to pay their athletes an annual stipend of $2,000 to cover the "incidental costs" of a college education. NCAA president Mark Emmert was firm in his denial that this constituted "pay for play."

Nonsense.

Of course, it is.

And that's the ballgame right there. As soon as you pay someone $2,000, you cannot make the argument that it is unethical to pay that person $5,000, or $10,000, or a million bucks a year, for all that. Amateurism is one of those rigid things that cannot bend, only shatter. Amateurism is an unsustainable concept. It could not last in golf. It could not last in tennis. It couldn't even last in the Olympics, where it was supposed to have been ordained by Zeus or someone. It is the rancid legacy of a stultified British class system in which athletes were supposed to be "gentlemen" and not "tradesmen." Which is to say that sports are supposed to be for Us and not Them, old sport.

It was particularly badly suited for transplantation to this country, where we — theoretically, anyway, and against a preponderance of available evidence today — believe that we are a classless society based on upward mobility and the essential fairness of our system.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, but play along for the moment, OK?)

Sports have always played an important role in the construction of that part of our national self-image. Sports as a "way out of poverty" is one of our more cherished national myths, and it always ran headlong into the British concept of amateurism, which was based on a class system that didn't believe in ways out of poverty for the lower orders, or the Irish. But I repeat myself. Basically, amateurism offends against this country's image of itself and, therefore, its support here always has been tenuous.
Give Americans a chance to be greedy and noble at the same time, and the cultural momentum becomes unstoppable.
Click to expand...
[/article]


Which is part of the reason why every major "scandal" in college sports begins with the crash of a cymbal and ends with a stifled yawn. What we have in college sports at the moment is a perfect example of a functioning underground economy. People tolerate that economy because, fundamentally, we believe that, if you work a 40-hour-a-week job that requires travel all over the country, you ought to get paid for it. We also love the games. Hence, out of both selfishness and a kind of innate sense of fairness, most people are more satisfied with the sausage than they are horrified at how it's made. Give Americans a chance to be greedy and noble at the same time, and the cultural momentum becomes unstoppable.

The counterargument, of course, is that athletes are "compensated" by the scholarships they are granted to the universities they attend. In a time in which the middle class is being squeezed, and a college education is pricing itself out of the reach of thousands of families, this argument gains a certain amount of power. However, let's accept it on its face for the moment. You can say that the university is entitled to the gate receipts from its games based on the value of the scholarships it grants to its players, and I might even grant you that, at which point I will lie down until this feeling passes.

But the ancillary income — television revenues, the sale of jerseys and other gear, the use of a player's "likeness" in video games, and on and on — completely overwhelms the equation and makes the relationship inequitable. The Southeastern Conference made over a billion dollars last year. The Big 10 made $905 million. These people may have a moral right to their ticket sales based on the scholarships they provide, but they don't have a moral right to every last nickel they can squeeze out of their labor force. That's absurd. It's un-American. And it cannot last.

The NCAA is floundering now, proposing a cheap pay-for-play scheme while denying it is doing so, and hoping to buy a little more time against the looming inevitable. Eventually, one night, they'll throw up the ball at an NCAA tournament game and none of the players will jump. Or, a judge will rule on one or another of the lawsuits. Let's look at the history of one of the plaintiffs.

In 1963, Bill Russell went to Jackson, Mississippi, and, in the face of the worst America had to offer, conducted integrated basketball clinics. In his way he helped redeem the distance between this country's promise and this country's reality. Bill Russell's been threatened by experts, boys, and now he's suing you. If I were you, I wouldn't screw with Bill Russell.

Charles P. Pierce is a staff writer for Grantland and the author of Idiot America. He writes regularly for Esquire , is the lead writer for Esquire.com's Politics blog and is a frequent guest on NPR.
 
that article ended awkwardly. was tha tthe entire piece?

Dre, Link me.


also, mario Pender has a real interest in Vols, His Pops is very impressed and they are going to look into us seriously. *Michael Jordan clenched fist pump*
 
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
Zeke

Nah, I wont be disappointed, I just need Vols to get back to Elite RBs every cycle.

We only have one RB committed that I like, Imani Cross, the other cat (Hill) is SUSPECT! Dooley loved him at Camp but ... he doesnt look like a player to me. *shrugs*
 
Reasons why the Huskies are better than the Ducks...

* Washington leads the overall series 57-40-5. Oregon would still need to win the next 17 meetings in a row to even the series.

* Largest margin of victory: Washington 66 Oregon 0 on October 26, 1974.

* National Championships: 2 for Washington (last in 1991), 0 for Oregon.

* Last Rose Bowl Win: 2001 for Washington, 1917 for Oregon

* Total Rose Bowl Appearances: 14 for Washington, 5 for Oregon

* Total Rose Bowl Wins: 7 for Washington, 1 for Oregon

* All-time Washington Huskies Record: 668-416-50 (.611)

* All-time Oregon Ducks Records: 555-468-47 (.541)

* Total Conference Titles: Washington 15, Oregon 9

* All-time Washington post-season bowl record: 16-14-1

* All-time Oregon Ducks post-season bowl record: 9-15






There! That 'oughta fuel the fire. Oregon has won 7 in a row, all by more than 20 I think. This Saturday marks a rivalry rekindled.

Where you at Duck fans?
happy.gif
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

therealest1
Jordan XI Low CNY/Year Of The Snake - Spring 2025
Replies
7
Views
1K
ccastro02
ccastro02
marikomorose
(HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!) JANUARY 2024 WDYWT . ❤️ TO A GREAT YEAR
7 8 9
Replies
222
Views
20K
Liquid Swords
Liquid Swords

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom