Just because:
Here's the abridged version:
This is what makes college football so great -- bands that don't take themselves too seriously. I have seen some wacky halftime shows, but for the sheer insanity of it, my hat's off to Iowa State Marching Band.
Here's a little back room info about the show.
Showing posts with label college football. Show all posts
Showing posts with label college football. Show all posts
Friday, October 19, 2018
Friday, October 5, 2018
Hoop dreams
Christian Dawkins, James Gatto and Merl Code are on trial in federal court in New York for wire fraud and conspiracy. But the real question isn't whether they did or didn't do what they are accused of doing -- because they will admit what they did. The real question is whether there was a crime committed at all.
Dawkins, Gatto and Code are the first three defendants brought to trial in the FBI's investigation into the seedy underbelly of college basketball. The three men are accused of paying players. But who are the victims in this?
On Thursday, Bruce Bowen testified about the offers he received for his son, Bruce II (otherwise known as Tugs) from various schools around the country. He had (monetary) offers from Oklahoma State, DePaul, Creighton and Louisville. He chose the money Louisville was offering him -- or, more precisely, his father chose Louisville.
The feds (and the NCAA) are trying to make out the schools as the victims in this vast conspiracy. The only problem is that the schools are ankle deep in their own shit. It is no secret that schools have orchestrated payments to football and basketball players for decades. Usually the money -- or the "show up" job -- came from boosters which allowed the schools to deny any knowledge of the practice. That worked out well until SMU pissed in the punch bowl and had their football program shut down for lack of institutional control.
Over the years other schools have done things far worse than the boosters at SMU did during the heyday of the Pony Express. But no other school has ever had their football or basketball program shut down. The NCAA saw the damage that caused (SMU has never recovered from the death penalty and will likely never do so), and have let major schools off with slaps on the wrist for behavior that SMU boosters would find shady.
Meanwhile NCAA officials, conference commissioners, head coaches, television executives and casino sports books continue to make money hand over fist from college football and basketball while the players receive a scholarship and a small stipend. Everyone is getting paid except the athletes. But the NCAA doesn't want you to focus on that inconvenient little fact. They bring out their smoke and mirrors to distract your attention.
The NCAA wants you to believe that the principal of amateurism is at the heart of college athletics and that student athletes compete for the thrill of the competition itself. And they will throw the book at any athlete who admits to receiving any payment from a booster. They will suspend him and call him dishonest and a disgrace.
But no one has anything to say about football coaches making over $5 million a year coaching these amateur athletes.
The defense strategy is to admit to everything with regard to paying players. While that may be a violation of NCAA rules, it is not a criminal offense. Who was defrauded? Not the schools - they knew what was going on and they turned a blind eye to it. The job of their compliance officers was to cover up what they could and to create plausible deniability should anyone ever come knocking on their door.
The players weren't defrauded. They got paid. The fans weren't defrauded. They continued to buy tickets and watch games on the tube.
This trial is a waste of time and money. It is an attempt by the NCAA to cover up its own problems and to defend shamateurism.
Dawkins, Gatto and Code are the first three defendants brought to trial in the FBI's investigation into the seedy underbelly of college basketball. The three men are accused of paying players. But who are the victims in this?
On Thursday, Bruce Bowen testified about the offers he received for his son, Bruce II (otherwise known as Tugs) from various schools around the country. He had (monetary) offers from Oklahoma State, DePaul, Creighton and Louisville. He chose the money Louisville was offering him -- or, more precisely, his father chose Louisville.
The feds (and the NCAA) are trying to make out the schools as the victims in this vast conspiracy. The only problem is that the schools are ankle deep in their own shit. It is no secret that schools have orchestrated payments to football and basketball players for decades. Usually the money -- or the "show up" job -- came from boosters which allowed the schools to deny any knowledge of the practice. That worked out well until SMU pissed in the punch bowl and had their football program shut down for lack of institutional control.
Over the years other schools have done things far worse than the boosters at SMU did during the heyday of the Pony Express. But no other school has ever had their football or basketball program shut down. The NCAA saw the damage that caused (SMU has never recovered from the death penalty and will likely never do so), and have let major schools off with slaps on the wrist for behavior that SMU boosters would find shady.
Meanwhile NCAA officials, conference commissioners, head coaches, television executives and casino sports books continue to make money hand over fist from college football and basketball while the players receive a scholarship and a small stipend. Everyone is getting paid except the athletes. But the NCAA doesn't want you to focus on that inconvenient little fact. They bring out their smoke and mirrors to distract your attention.
The NCAA wants you to believe that the principal of amateurism is at the heart of college athletics and that student athletes compete for the thrill of the competition itself. And they will throw the book at any athlete who admits to receiving any payment from a booster. They will suspend him and call him dishonest and a disgrace.
But no one has anything to say about football coaches making over $5 million a year coaching these amateur athletes.
The defense strategy is to admit to everything with regard to paying players. While that may be a violation of NCAA rules, it is not a criminal offense. Who was defrauded? Not the schools - they knew what was going on and they turned a blind eye to it. The job of their compliance officers was to cover up what they could and to create plausible deniability should anyone ever come knocking on their door.
The players weren't defrauded. They got paid. The fans weren't defrauded. They continued to buy tickets and watch games on the tube.
This trial is a waste of time and money. It is an attempt by the NCAA to cover up its own problems and to defend shamateurism.
Saturday, May 19, 2018
Just win, baby
He has talked about the need to improve the "game day atmosphere" at Texas football games in an effort to combat falling attendance. He has proposed closing off San Jacinto Street and turning it into a game day festival. He has suggested having concerts before and after games in the parking lot of the LBJ Library just north of the stadium. He has moved both the band and student sections for the upcoming season.
But here's the dirty little secret, Chris. None of the peripheral stuff matters. A festival in front of the stadium won't help the situation. A concert up the street from the stadium won't matter, either.
When Texas was competing for national championships and conference championships, no one ever said a word about how boring things were outside the stadium and before the games. No one cared. The team was winning - and that made the game day atmosphere special. If you want to improve the game day atmosphere - put a winning product on the field.
Over the last five years UT has been a .500 team. That's pathetic. It's so pathetic that some folks are willing to give their left nut for an 8-win season in 2018.
That's right - for an 8-win season.
I'm a season ticket holder. I drive up to Austin four or five times a season. My kids love going - they don't care about the final score. They like hanging out on campus and stopping at Buc-cee's in Bastrop.
Texas hasn't had a good team since the 2009 squad that lost to Alabama in the title game after Colt McCoy was injured in the first quarter. It gets harder and harder to justify the expense of buying tickets and driving up to Austin after every loss.
I don't care what's going on around the stadium before the game. We're just as likely to go bowling at the Texas Union before the game as we are to go to the Alumni center or wander around campus or up and down the Drag.
Chris and his staff need to remember that it's a lot cheaper to sit on the couch with a cooler full of beer and watch Texas lose than it is to make the trek to Austin. That's the difference between winning and losing.
Thursday, May 17, 2018
Same as it ever was
Now that the US Supreme Court has declared the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act unconstitutional and paved the way for legalized sports wagering across the country, yet more folks will make money at the expense of college athletes.
I'm not going to rehash the holding of the court because that heavy lifting has already been done. My focus is, instead, on the continued exploitation of college athletes under the guise of amateurism. This quaint notion goes back to 19th century England. The upper class decided their children were too soft from generations of sloth and so they encouraged their children to take up sports. In order to protect their precious snowflakes from the dirty masses, they came up with the idea of amateurism - a concept that allowed those who had the means not to have to work, to compete in athletic competitions with other like-minded souls. This notion extended to the relatively new sport of college football.
Before World War II, college was largely restricted to the children of the wealthy. That began to change after the war with the GI Bill which made college affordable for those who had served in the military. In the 60's - and into the 70's - colleges in the south were finally integrating both their student bodies and their athletic teams. The awarding of athletic scholarships suddenly made a college education for poor and black families.
All of this was well and good while college football remained a regional sport. When I grew up in the 70's and 80's, you were lucky to get three or four college games a Saturday. You would get a nationally televised game on ABC (and mayble a regional one, too). You might get a Notre Dame game and, if you were lucky, a syndicated game of the week. Let's just say the money wasn't exactly rolling into the coffers in those days.
In the 80's many colleges filed suit against the NCAA arguing that its television policies were hurting its members. The schools - and conferences - won the right to negotiate their own television contracts. You also had the birth of ESPN - and ESPN needed programming to fill its schedule.
Suddenly there was an explosion of television money in college sports.We went from a couple of live games a week to somewhere between one and two dozen games every Saturday. Networks paid increasing amounts of money for the rights to broadcast those games and the schools began making money.
Then there was the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. It began marketing itself as March Madness. The field expanded from 32 to 48 to 64 to 68 teams. CBS and Turner pay billions of dollars to televise the games.
Coaches were the first to reap the rewards of television money. Network and advertising executives took their cut. Video game makers created games and made millions off of college athletics. Sporting apparel companies made money selling jerseys and shirts. But the players saw none of it.
Now with sports betting legalized, sports books, casinos and racetracks across the country are gearing up to meet the expected demand. They are all ready to get their cut out of legal betting on college football and basketball games. The NCAA is talking about charging firms who take bets on college sports a fee to pay for increased monitoring of the sport.
But no one is talking about the players getting a piece of the pie. Gaming executives will get theirs. State treasuries will get theirs. Networks and ad agencies will get theirs. The NCAA will get theirs.
Yet once again the athletes will serve as nothing more than the vessel for money passing from one hand to another. Life down on the plantation will continue same as it ever was.
I'm not going to rehash the holding of the court because that heavy lifting has already been done. My focus is, instead, on the continued exploitation of college athletes under the guise of amateurism. This quaint notion goes back to 19th century England. The upper class decided their children were too soft from generations of sloth and so they encouraged their children to take up sports. In order to protect their precious snowflakes from the dirty masses, they came up with the idea of amateurism - a concept that allowed those who had the means not to have to work, to compete in athletic competitions with other like-minded souls. This notion extended to the relatively new sport of college football.
Before World War II, college was largely restricted to the children of the wealthy. That began to change after the war with the GI Bill which made college affordable for those who had served in the military. In the 60's - and into the 70's - colleges in the south were finally integrating both their student bodies and their athletic teams. The awarding of athletic scholarships suddenly made a college education for poor and black families.
All of this was well and good while college football remained a regional sport. When I grew up in the 70's and 80's, you were lucky to get three or four college games a Saturday. You would get a nationally televised game on ABC (and mayble a regional one, too). You might get a Notre Dame game and, if you were lucky, a syndicated game of the week. Let's just say the money wasn't exactly rolling into the coffers in those days.
In the 80's many colleges filed suit against the NCAA arguing that its television policies were hurting its members. The schools - and conferences - won the right to negotiate their own television contracts. You also had the birth of ESPN - and ESPN needed programming to fill its schedule.
Suddenly there was an explosion of television money in college sports.We went from a couple of live games a week to somewhere between one and two dozen games every Saturday. Networks paid increasing amounts of money for the rights to broadcast those games and the schools began making money.
Then there was the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. It began marketing itself as March Madness. The field expanded from 32 to 48 to 64 to 68 teams. CBS and Turner pay billions of dollars to televise the games.
Coaches were the first to reap the rewards of television money. Network and advertising executives took their cut. Video game makers created games and made millions off of college athletics. Sporting apparel companies made money selling jerseys and shirts. But the players saw none of it.
Now with sports betting legalized, sports books, casinos and racetracks across the country are gearing up to meet the expected demand. They are all ready to get their cut out of legal betting on college football and basketball games. The NCAA is talking about charging firms who take bets on college sports a fee to pay for increased monitoring of the sport.
But no one is talking about the players getting a piece of the pie. Gaming executives will get theirs. State treasuries will get theirs. Networks and ad agencies will get theirs. The NCAA will get theirs.
Yet once again the athletes will serve as nothing more than the vessel for money passing from one hand to another. Life down on the plantation will continue same as it ever was.
Saturday, December 6, 2014
The end of the season is nigh
Today the college football regular season comes to a close.
The end of the season will also bring us a brand new playoff format to determine football's national champion. But is there any need for a playoff?
For most of the 20th century, college football was regional sport. The rare intersectional game between college football powers was a special treat. Since there was no centralized authority in charge of the game, schools made up their own schedules and no one worried about winning a mythical national title. The goal was always to beat your rival, win your conference and hope you get invited to a bowl game.
Sportswriters were the only folks who followed more than just a local team and they banded together to vote for a national champion. This system (later amended with a coach's poll) worked until 1984 when Brigham Young University (BYU) ran the table and beat a mediocre Michigan team in a pre-New Year's Day bowl game. BYU was named national champion, much to the chagrin of the football powers. Something had to be done to prevent that from ever happening again.
The result was something called the Bowl Alliance in which four major bowls worked out a plan to match the best teams against each other in bowl games regardless of which conference they were from. That system was later replaced by the Bowl Championship Series which set about to match the top two ranked teams first in a bowl game and then in a stand alone championship game.
After years of questionable decisions regarding who got to play for the title (and threats of an anti-trust lawsuit from the non-football factory schools), the BCS was scrapped and replaced by a four-team playoff which debuts this season.
The "clamor" for a playoff came mostly from the networks who broadcast college football games. Since the playoff would involve but four out of 120 teams, most fans had nothing at stake and went about their lives as if nothing happened.
But the system was flawed from the beginning. The five conferences containing the biggest schools formed an alliance and decided to pick four teams to challenge for the championship. Hmm. Five conferences. Four slots. The math didn't add up. If the problem with the polls and the BCS was that the championship wasn't being decided on the field. But, by devising a system that leaves out one conference champion, the decision who plays for the title is being made in a boardroom, not on the field.
From the opening kickoff this season commentators kept saying the Big 12 would be at a disadvantage because the conference didn't have a "true" championship game. It's true there is no conference championship game, but that's because unlike the other four major conferences, every Big 12 team plays every other team during the course of the season. Therefore there was no need for a championship game - in the event two teams ended the season with the same record, the team who won the game between them would be the champion.
Earlier this season, in Waco, Texas, Baylor came back from three touchdowns down in the last ten minutes of the game to beat TCU on a last second field goal. In the event that both Baylor and TCU win today, Baylor would win the conference because they beat the Frogs earlier this season. In fact the conference ran commercials all season long bragging about ten teams, nine games, one "true champion."
That was until the possibility of both Baylor and TCU advancing to the playoff arose. Now the conference has rolled over on cue when the money was waved under its nose. Should both the Bears and Frogs win today, they will be declared co-champions. So much for deciding it on the field.
For the last few weeks a playoff selection committee has been releasing a poll ranking their top 25 teams. Sports talk radio and sports talking heads have been arguing the merits of the top four teams ever since.
But the poll is an idiotic idea. If the job of the committee is to pick the top four teams at the end of the season, the in-season poll serves no purpose other than fueling debate on radio and television.
If we really want to determine a champion (and there is no good reason we have to do so), the only role of the selection committee should be to select the best team from outside the so-called Power Five conferences and then seed the six teams. The committee doesn't need to pick the teams that are participating from the major conferences - just take the champions. If you aren't the best team in your conference, you can't be the best team in the country. Period.
For those bloviators like Colin Cowherd who says that head-to-head doesn't matter (he ranks TCU above Baylor), what would he do if the top-seeded team lost on a fluke last second play to an inferior team in the first round? Would he still vote for the top seed for champion because they passed the "eye ball" test? If you want a single elimination playoff then the conference championship games are the de facto first round. So there.
On a related note, today we will find out whether the safety of a player is more important that winning a football game. Baylor quarterback Bryce Petty suffered a "mild" concussion (sorry, a concussion is a concussion is a concussion). He was taken out of the game - though he said he would be back on the field today against Kansas State.
The medical evidence is overwhelming that once a person suffers a concussion they are more susceptible for future concussions. While Mr. Petty may want to play today, the coaching and medical staff at Baylor should have enough regard for his safety to keep him off the field. I would love to see Baylor win, but if that win comes at the expense of Mr. Petty's health, it is a hollow victory. The coaches and doctors are adults and should be looking out for the health of their charges.
There was a day when Art Briles sat down at the table with Mr. Petty's parents and promised he would take care of their son. It's time to see if that promise was sincere.
The end of the season will also bring us a brand new playoff format to determine football's national champion. But is there any need for a playoff?
For most of the 20th century, college football was regional sport. The rare intersectional game between college football powers was a special treat. Since there was no centralized authority in charge of the game, schools made up their own schedules and no one worried about winning a mythical national title. The goal was always to beat your rival, win your conference and hope you get invited to a bowl game.
Sportswriters were the only folks who followed more than just a local team and they banded together to vote for a national champion. This system (later amended with a coach's poll) worked until 1984 when Brigham Young University (BYU) ran the table and beat a mediocre Michigan team in a pre-New Year's Day bowl game. BYU was named national champion, much to the chagrin of the football powers. Something had to be done to prevent that from ever happening again.
The result was something called the Bowl Alliance in which four major bowls worked out a plan to match the best teams against each other in bowl games regardless of which conference they were from. That system was later replaced by the Bowl Championship Series which set about to match the top two ranked teams first in a bowl game and then in a stand alone championship game.
After years of questionable decisions regarding who got to play for the title (and threats of an anti-trust lawsuit from the non-football factory schools), the BCS was scrapped and replaced by a four-team playoff which debuts this season.
The "clamor" for a playoff came mostly from the networks who broadcast college football games. Since the playoff would involve but four out of 120 teams, most fans had nothing at stake and went about their lives as if nothing happened.
But the system was flawed from the beginning. The five conferences containing the biggest schools formed an alliance and decided to pick four teams to challenge for the championship. Hmm. Five conferences. Four slots. The math didn't add up. If the problem with the polls and the BCS was that the championship wasn't being decided on the field. But, by devising a system that leaves out one conference champion, the decision who plays for the title is being made in a boardroom, not on the field.
From the opening kickoff this season commentators kept saying the Big 12 would be at a disadvantage because the conference didn't have a "true" championship game. It's true there is no conference championship game, but that's because unlike the other four major conferences, every Big 12 team plays every other team during the course of the season. Therefore there was no need for a championship game - in the event two teams ended the season with the same record, the team who won the game between them would be the champion.
Earlier this season, in Waco, Texas, Baylor came back from three touchdowns down in the last ten minutes of the game to beat TCU on a last second field goal. In the event that both Baylor and TCU win today, Baylor would win the conference because they beat the Frogs earlier this season. In fact the conference ran commercials all season long bragging about ten teams, nine games, one "true champion."
That was until the possibility of both Baylor and TCU advancing to the playoff arose. Now the conference has rolled over on cue when the money was waved under its nose. Should both the Bears and Frogs win today, they will be declared co-champions. So much for deciding it on the field.
For the last few weeks a playoff selection committee has been releasing a poll ranking their top 25 teams. Sports talk radio and sports talking heads have been arguing the merits of the top four teams ever since.
But the poll is an idiotic idea. If the job of the committee is to pick the top four teams at the end of the season, the in-season poll serves no purpose other than fueling debate on radio and television.
If we really want to determine a champion (and there is no good reason we have to do so), the only role of the selection committee should be to select the best team from outside the so-called Power Five conferences and then seed the six teams. The committee doesn't need to pick the teams that are participating from the major conferences - just take the champions. If you aren't the best team in your conference, you can't be the best team in the country. Period.
For those bloviators like Colin Cowherd who says that head-to-head doesn't matter (he ranks TCU above Baylor), what would he do if the top-seeded team lost on a fluke last second play to an inferior team in the first round? Would he still vote for the top seed for champion because they passed the "eye ball" test? If you want a single elimination playoff then the conference championship games are the de facto first round. So there.
On a related note, today we will find out whether the safety of a player is more important that winning a football game. Baylor quarterback Bryce Petty suffered a "mild" concussion (sorry, a concussion is a concussion is a concussion). He was taken out of the game - though he said he would be back on the field today against Kansas State.
The medical evidence is overwhelming that once a person suffers a concussion they are more susceptible for future concussions. While Mr. Petty may want to play today, the coaching and medical staff at Baylor should have enough regard for his safety to keep him off the field. I would love to see Baylor win, but if that win comes at the expense of Mr. Petty's health, it is a hollow victory. The coaches and doctors are adults and should be looking out for the health of their charges.
There was a day when Art Briles sat down at the table with Mr. Petty's parents and promised he would take care of their son. It's time to see if that promise was sincere.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Down, set, unionize!
Today football players at Northwestern University outside Chicago will vote on whether or not to unionize. Ever since the Chicago office of the National Labor Relations Board ruled that college football players should be considered employees of the school they attend there has been pressure put on the NU players to vote down unionization.
Coach Pat Fitzgerald has been adamant in his opposition to the union effort. And why not? After all, he's part of the management structure. Of course he doesn't want the players working together to improve their working conditions and benefits. Such an action would mean he wasn't the Grand Poobah by the Lake. Unionization could mean an end to the program of "voluntary" off-season workouts in which anyone who volunteers not to be there is volunteering not to play in the fall.
Unionization might also mean that there would be a limit on the number of hours a week players could practice being that excessive practice time interferes with a student's ability to study and prepare for class.
University officials are scared to death of what might happen should the players vote to unionize. A yes vote today could usher in an era of better health care coverage for injuries suffered while playing for the university and for four-year scholarships instead of the current year-at-a-time scholarship that puts a player at the mercy of the coach.
Such measures could cut into the pool of money that Northwestern and other universities rake in from football and basketball. Now, to be fair, very few colleges have athletic departments that make a profit. In fact, many schools have to subsidize athletics by tacking on fees for the rest of the student body. Of course there is always a few million dollars to hand out to the coach. In many cases, the head football coaches at a state's public institutions are the highest paid state employees - underlining our screwed up sense of priorities.
The football players who are on the fence on this issue (and the ones who are against it) need to get their heads around the concept that there is power in numbers. While the coaching staff might not like the idea, if the players are united in their efforts, they will win in the end. These players are exploited by the school. While the NU athletic department brings in some $20 million a year as a result of the Big Ten Network, the players are the equivalents of unpaid farmhands who the program will chew up and spit out once they are no longer of any use.
For the vast majority of these players, their playing days will end with the final game of their senior season. They will then go off into the world with nothing but the education they received at Northwestern. They will be the ones stuck with the nagging medical issues left over from their time on the gridiron.
Our current sports media coverage has deified coaches and athletic directors at the expense of the players. Coaches are portrayed as field generals leading their troops into battle while the players are just the meat being led to slaughter. Watch a college football game and you will never hear a commentator talk about how coaches hold players hostage by threatening to yank a scholarship. You won't hear anyone talk about who's responsible for the long-term side effects of playing college football. You will rarely hear someone talk about coaches who refuse to allow players to transfer to another school.
Today is the day for college football players to fight back and tear off the shackles that hold them captive. This is the time for them to seize the moment. Today's the day we find out whether football builds character or just serves to crush dissenting voices.
UPDATE:
In a demonstration of just how powerful a group of workers can be, no one will be climbing Everest from the Nepali side in 2014 after Sherpas decided to walk off the mountain following last week's deadly avalanche. While the Sherpas on the mountain earn far more than the average Nepali, the government's decision to pay the families of those who died on the mountain a measly $400 brought to a boil tensions that had been simmering for years.
Maybe the football players at Northwestern should take a loot to see just what an organized group of workers can do when they act with the collective strength of the entire group.
Coach Pat Fitzgerald has been adamant in his opposition to the union effort. And why not? After all, he's part of the management structure. Of course he doesn't want the players working together to improve their working conditions and benefits. Such an action would mean he wasn't the Grand Poobah by the Lake. Unionization could mean an end to the program of "voluntary" off-season workouts in which anyone who volunteers not to be there is volunteering not to play in the fall.
Unionization might also mean that there would be a limit on the number of hours a week players could practice being that excessive practice time interferes with a student's ability to study and prepare for class.
University officials are scared to death of what might happen should the players vote to unionize. A yes vote today could usher in an era of better health care coverage for injuries suffered while playing for the university and for four-year scholarships instead of the current year-at-a-time scholarship that puts a player at the mercy of the coach.
Such measures could cut into the pool of money that Northwestern and other universities rake in from football and basketball. Now, to be fair, very few colleges have athletic departments that make a profit. In fact, many schools have to subsidize athletics by tacking on fees for the rest of the student body. Of course there is always a few million dollars to hand out to the coach. In many cases, the head football coaches at a state's public institutions are the highest paid state employees - underlining our screwed up sense of priorities.
The football players who are on the fence on this issue (and the ones who are against it) need to get their heads around the concept that there is power in numbers. While the coaching staff might not like the idea, if the players are united in their efforts, they will win in the end. These players are exploited by the school. While the NU athletic department brings in some $20 million a year as a result of the Big Ten Network, the players are the equivalents of unpaid farmhands who the program will chew up and spit out once they are no longer of any use.
For the vast majority of these players, their playing days will end with the final game of their senior season. They will then go off into the world with nothing but the education they received at Northwestern. They will be the ones stuck with the nagging medical issues left over from their time on the gridiron.
Our current sports media coverage has deified coaches and athletic directors at the expense of the players. Coaches are portrayed as field generals leading their troops into battle while the players are just the meat being led to slaughter. Watch a college football game and you will never hear a commentator talk about how coaches hold players hostage by threatening to yank a scholarship. You won't hear anyone talk about who's responsible for the long-term side effects of playing college football. You will rarely hear someone talk about coaches who refuse to allow players to transfer to another school.
Today is the day for college football players to fight back and tear off the shackles that hold them captive. This is the time for them to seize the moment. Today's the day we find out whether football builds character or just serves to crush dissenting voices.
UPDATE:
In a demonstration of just how powerful a group of workers can be, no one will be climbing Everest from the Nepali side in 2014 after Sherpas decided to walk off the mountain following last week's deadly avalanche. While the Sherpas on the mountain earn far more than the average Nepali, the government's decision to pay the families of those who died on the mountain a measly $400 brought to a boil tensions that had been simmering for years.
Maybe the football players at Northwestern should take a loot to see just what an organized group of workers can do when they act with the collective strength of the entire group.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Look for that union label! Rah! Rah! Rah!
This morning in Chicago there will be a hearing before the National Labor Relations Board in which the NLRB will determine whether the football players at Northwestern University can form a union to represent their interests. The university is opposing the players' application on the grounds that college football players are students, not employees.
Over the past few years the business of college football has exploded. While it was always popular the money being thrown about by networks to broadcast college football games is at stratospheric levels. Despite the unprecedented television rights fees, only about 10% of the athletic departments at public universities in Division I turn a profit. The vast majority of schools tax all students to pay for the school's athletic teams.
But all the new money flowing into college athletics hasn't trickled down to the players. Yes, the players receive scholarships to attend school - and many are given access to a school that they would not have otherwise been able to attend - but the scholarships are held over their heads by the coach and school. Scholarships for football players are not handed out for a four or five-year period, they are handed out on a year-to-year basis. This means that the players' educations are subject to the whims of the coaching staff.
Football scholarships should be for at least five years to insure that every football player has the opportunity to obtain their degree after their playing days are over. Only a small minority of college football players will ever go on to earn a paycheck for playing football; for the rest, that college degree is the reward for their playing days.
The players spend at least as much time on the field as they do in class every week. They are used by the universities as marketing tools to attract new applicants and athletic donors. The schools sell uniforms with numbers - but not names - that correspond to the most popular players. Their work benefits the school. Yet the schools insist they are not employees.
College athletes should receive a stipend of some sort for the work they perform for the university. That stipend should be based upon the number of hours they spend at practice and on the field. At the very least they should be compensated at the same level students on work-study programs are paid. The schools should also be responsible for the future medical expenses for injuries the players suffered while playing college ball.
College football is a huge money-making machine and the players are the unpaid labor that makes it all possible. It's time they received a fair shake from these institutes of higher learning who are given the task of preparing our youth to be the leaders of tomorrow.
Over the past few years the business of college football has exploded. While it was always popular the money being thrown about by networks to broadcast college football games is at stratospheric levels. Despite the unprecedented television rights fees, only about 10% of the athletic departments at public universities in Division I turn a profit. The vast majority of schools tax all students to pay for the school's athletic teams.
But all the new money flowing into college athletics hasn't trickled down to the players. Yes, the players receive scholarships to attend school - and many are given access to a school that they would not have otherwise been able to attend - but the scholarships are held over their heads by the coach and school. Scholarships for football players are not handed out for a four or five-year period, they are handed out on a year-to-year basis. This means that the players' educations are subject to the whims of the coaching staff.
Football scholarships should be for at least five years to insure that every football player has the opportunity to obtain their degree after their playing days are over. Only a small minority of college football players will ever go on to earn a paycheck for playing football; for the rest, that college degree is the reward for their playing days.
The players spend at least as much time on the field as they do in class every week. They are used by the universities as marketing tools to attract new applicants and athletic donors. The schools sell uniforms with numbers - but not names - that correspond to the most popular players. Their work benefits the school. Yet the schools insist they are not employees.
College athletes should receive a stipend of some sort for the work they perform for the university. That stipend should be based upon the number of hours they spend at practice and on the field. At the very least they should be compensated at the same level students on work-study programs are paid. The schools should also be responsible for the future medical expenses for injuries the players suffered while playing college ball.
College football is a huge money-making machine and the players are the unpaid labor that makes it all possible. It's time they received a fair shake from these institutes of higher learning who are given the task of preparing our youth to be the leaders of tomorrow.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Goodbye, Mack
I just got back from seeing the sad ending to the Mack Brown era at Texas. I really wanted it to end differently than it did. I can't say I'm surprised, however.
My wife suggested I go to the Texas Exes viewing party to watch the Alamo Bowl tonight - so I did. As did my youngest daughter. The game stunk but we had fun. She drank her lemonade while I downed a couple of Shiners and we ate through the bag of goodies my wife packed for us.
She was completely oblivious to the score. She was there to watch the game and hang out with her old man. She was sad that Mack Brown was stepping down. When she heard he was being forced out (I'm not playing along with this resigning charade), she cried.
As I have written before, throughout this entire episode, Mack Brown has shown more class than all of his detractors. The final nail in the coffin was when the board of regents told UT President William Powers in a closed session that Mack had to go. Powers didn't even have the class to tell Mack face-to-face. He sent in the new AD, Steve Patterson, to do his dirty work.
What an example you set for the students on the Forty Acres.
And having the palace intrigue made public doesn't make the job any more desirable. Why would Jimbo Fisher or Art Briles want to leave to come to a school in which the regents will be plotting their demise after their first loss?
But, despite everything that went on behind his back, Mack Brown responded by my request and sent my youngest an autographed picture of him holding the trophy for winning the national championship. He didn't have to do it. But that's the kind of person Mack Brown is. There's a lesson in there for all of us.
My wife suggested I go to the Texas Exes viewing party to watch the Alamo Bowl tonight - so I did. As did my youngest daughter. The game stunk but we had fun. She drank her lemonade while I downed a couple of Shiners and we ate through the bag of goodies my wife packed for us.
She was completely oblivious to the score. She was there to watch the game and hang out with her old man. She was sad that Mack Brown was stepping down. When she heard he was being forced out (I'm not playing along with this resigning charade), she cried.
As I have written before, throughout this entire episode, Mack Brown has shown more class than all of his detractors. The final nail in the coffin was when the board of regents told UT President William Powers in a closed session that Mack had to go. Powers didn't even have the class to tell Mack face-to-face. He sent in the new AD, Steve Patterson, to do his dirty work.
What an example you set for the students on the Forty Acres.
And having the palace intrigue made public doesn't make the job any more desirable. Why would Jimbo Fisher or Art Briles want to leave to come to a school in which the regents will be plotting their demise after their first loss?
But, despite everything that went on behind his back, Mack Brown responded by my request and sent my youngest an autographed picture of him holding the trophy for winning the national championship. He didn't have to do it. But that's the kind of person Mack Brown is. There's a lesson in there for all of us.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Book review - The System: The Glory and Scandal of Big-Time College Football
College football is one of this country's favorite activities. Every Saturday thousands of students, alumni and ordinary fans pack stadiums across the country to watch young men wearing plastic armor clash against one another on the gridiron. But there is an ...
In their new book, The System: The Glory and Scandal of Big-Time College Football, Jeff Benedict and Armen Keteyian peel back the curtain and take a look at what happens when the cameras aren't on. And, in many cases, it isn't pretty.
The first thing you need to know is that, for the vast majority of players, once they leave school, they leave football behind for good. The glory of the NFL calls only for a few select young men - and, even then, most are chewed up and spit out by the pros in less than four years. Buy you'll never hear a coach or recruiter point out that little fact to any of the impressionable high school seniors they're courting. Instead they promise glory and fame. The kids see the inner sanctums of football programs across the country. They visit locker rooms, trophy rooms and training facilities. They are escorted around campus by attractive young ladies who flirt with them until they've signed their letter of intent.
There are exceptions, however. There are those coaches who demand that the young men in their charge get their education. But, with escalating salaries and pressure from boosters, the pressure is to win, win, win. And that means cutting corners and promising the moon. It also means that more and more coaches are willing to take chances on kids with sketchy backgrounds if they think the kid can help win more ball games.
The authors take you behind the scenes for a look at how the big money boosters play and at the world of 7-on-7 spring football. Everyone, it seems, has their hand out looking for something - whether it be access to studly football players, cash in exchange for delivering a recruit, a big check from the television network or the next big job. The only ones not cashing out are the players themselves.
Yes, they're given the opportunity to obtain a free education at some of the nation's finest colleges and universities. But, they are also pressure to sacrifice everything for the football team - and that includes their education. While there are some coaches, and some schools, that insist their athletes leave with a diploma - there are too many others who couldn't care less about what happens to those young men once they hang their helmets and pads up for good.
And that's the ultimate tragedy in all of this. College football should be an activity that brings students and alumni together - an activity that makes a university a family. It has, however, become the tail that wags the dog.
In their new book, The System: The Glory and Scandal of Big-Time College Football, Jeff Benedict and Armen Keteyian peel back the curtain and take a look at what happens when the cameras aren't on. And, in many cases, it isn't pretty.
The first thing you need to know is that, for the vast majority of players, once they leave school, they leave football behind for good. The glory of the NFL calls only for a few select young men - and, even then, most are chewed up and spit out by the pros in less than four years. Buy you'll never hear a coach or recruiter point out that little fact to any of the impressionable high school seniors they're courting. Instead they promise glory and fame. The kids see the inner sanctums of football programs across the country. They visit locker rooms, trophy rooms and training facilities. They are escorted around campus by attractive young ladies who flirt with them until they've signed their letter of intent.
There are exceptions, however. There are those coaches who demand that the young men in their charge get their education. But, with escalating salaries and pressure from boosters, the pressure is to win, win, win. And that means cutting corners and promising the moon. It also means that more and more coaches are willing to take chances on kids with sketchy backgrounds if they think the kid can help win more ball games.
The authors take you behind the scenes for a look at how the big money boosters play and at the world of 7-on-7 spring football. Everyone, it seems, has their hand out looking for something - whether it be access to studly football players, cash in exchange for delivering a recruit, a big check from the television network or the next big job. The only ones not cashing out are the players themselves.
Yes, they're given the opportunity to obtain a free education at some of the nation's finest colleges and universities. But, they are also pressure to sacrifice everything for the football team - and that includes their education. While there are some coaches, and some schools, that insist their athletes leave with a diploma - there are too many others who couldn't care less about what happens to those young men once they hang their helmets and pads up for good.
And that's the ultimate tragedy in all of this. College football should be an activity that brings students and alumni together - an activity that makes a university a family. It has, however, become the tail that wags the dog.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Is today Mack's last stand?
Today is being touted by some as Mack Brown's last stand. The feeling in some quarters is that anything short of a Texas win at the Cotton Bowl will lead to a coaching change at the end of the season.
With the upcoming retirement of UT Athletic Director DeLoss Dodds, it is very possible that there will be someone other than Mack Brown on the sideline when the Longhorns kick off the 2014 season. But, if you take a closer look at who may or may not be available, the odds may very well favor Mack Brown keeping his gig as the head man at the Forty Acres.
Keep in mind that if you want to show Mack Brown the door, you damn well better have someone in mind to take his place. Mack might not be the best coach in the country, but he's a damn sight better than most. You should also keep in mind where the University of Texas was when Mack Brown took over.
From the last year of Darrell Royal's tenure through the John Mackovic experiment, the Longhorns spent two decades wandering through the desert. Yes, they had the national title in hand in 1977 under Fred Akers - that is, until they were dismantled in the Cotton Bowl by Notre Dame. They had another shot a few years later until they lost to Georgia in the Cotton Bowl as well.
The three most attractive candidates for the job are Art Briles, Gary Patterson and Chris Peterson. But I think we can take Briles and Patterson out of the equation early. Both coach in the Big XII and I think it's extremely doubtful that either one would leave their post for the Texas job. That would leave Chris Peterson from Boise State. He has kept the level of play high despite being at a significant disadvantage in recruiting. Just imagine what he could do with the type of players he'd have in Austin.
But would he want to deal with all the distractions that come with being the coach at Texas? Would he be comfortable schmoozing with big donors? What about hosting two weekly shows on the Longhorn Network and being the star of a weekly behind-the-scenes show? And what about the media glare and the expectations that come with the job?
Once you get past the big three there just aren't that many serious candidates for the job. Maybe James Franklin at Vanderbilt - but would he be ready to step up? There's Charlie Strong at Louisville. He served as defensive coordinator at Florida under Urban Meyer. With his star quarterback graduating he might be willing to listen to offers. But is he ready for Texas? Then there's one more intriguing prospect that someone mentioned to me today - Mark Richt from Georgia.
He's got the experience coaching a major state school. His teams have competed for SEC titles. He is used to coaching in the spotlight and he's been on the hot seat before. He is, from all appearances, a class act. But would he want to leave Athens to move to Austin?
I don't know who else is out there that Texas would consider. Any new coach has to be able to recruit. He has to be willing to schmooze. He has to be able to deal with the distractions that come via the Longhorn Network. He has to be strong enough to withstand the criticism that he isn't Mack Brown.
And, no, Nick Saban isn't coming to Austin.
So, for those of y'all wanting to shove Mack Brown out the door, who are you going to hire in his place?
Anyone?
With the upcoming retirement of UT Athletic Director DeLoss Dodds, it is very possible that there will be someone other than Mack Brown on the sideline when the Longhorns kick off the 2014 season. But, if you take a closer look at who may or may not be available, the odds may very well favor Mack Brown keeping his gig as the head man at the Forty Acres.Keep in mind that if you want to show Mack Brown the door, you damn well better have someone in mind to take his place. Mack might not be the best coach in the country, but he's a damn sight better than most. You should also keep in mind where the University of Texas was when Mack Brown took over.
From the last year of Darrell Royal's tenure through the John Mackovic experiment, the Longhorns spent two decades wandering through the desert. Yes, they had the national title in hand in 1977 under Fred Akers - that is, until they were dismantled in the Cotton Bowl by Notre Dame. They had another shot a few years later until they lost to Georgia in the Cotton Bowl as well.
The three most attractive candidates for the job are Art Briles, Gary Patterson and Chris Peterson. But I think we can take Briles and Patterson out of the equation early. Both coach in the Big XII and I think it's extremely doubtful that either one would leave their post for the Texas job. That would leave Chris Peterson from Boise State. He has kept the level of play high despite being at a significant disadvantage in recruiting. Just imagine what he could do with the type of players he'd have in Austin.
But would he want to deal with all the distractions that come with being the coach at Texas? Would he be comfortable schmoozing with big donors? What about hosting two weekly shows on the Longhorn Network and being the star of a weekly behind-the-scenes show? And what about the media glare and the expectations that come with the job?
Once you get past the big three there just aren't that many serious candidates for the job. Maybe James Franklin at Vanderbilt - but would he be ready to step up? There's Charlie Strong at Louisville. He served as defensive coordinator at Florida under Urban Meyer. With his star quarterback graduating he might be willing to listen to offers. But is he ready for Texas? Then there's one more intriguing prospect that someone mentioned to me today - Mark Richt from Georgia.
He's got the experience coaching a major state school. His teams have competed for SEC titles. He is used to coaching in the spotlight and he's been on the hot seat before. He is, from all appearances, a class act. But would he want to leave Athens to move to Austin?
I don't know who else is out there that Texas would consider. Any new coach has to be able to recruit. He has to be willing to schmooze. He has to be able to deal with the distractions that come via the Longhorn Network. He has to be strong enough to withstand the criticism that he isn't Mack Brown.
And, no, Nick Saban isn't coming to Austin.
So, for those of y'all wanting to shove Mack Brown out the door, who are you going to hire in his place?
Anyone?
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Burnt ends
For those barbecue enthusiasts out there, y'all know that the burnt ends refer to the tips of briskets that have been smoked for hours in a smoker. The burnt ends are tasty little meat nuggets that are crispy and charred and full of smoky goodness.
And, so, here are some burnt ends for today...
The Elevator Troll
Last week I tried a DWI case in Harris County. Ordinarily I park along the street a couple blocks away from Minute Maid Park and walk five or six blocks to the criminal courthouse. On trial days, however, I park in the county parking garage and take the tunnel into the courthouse so I don't have to worry about rain.
So there I am, pulling my cart behind me, walking through the tunnel complex until I get to the criminal courthouse. I go in the door and down the hallway toward the elevators. There are two elevators that travel to the basement of the building. One is a normal elevator that goes up to the 10th floor (there are 20 floors in the courthouse). That elevator is accessible to anyone.
The other elevator has a keypad next to the call button that only those with county badges can access. That elevator is special - it goes all the way to the top of the building so you don't have to change elevators on the 10th floor.
On this particular day the regular elevator wasn't working so everyone who entered through the tunnel got to use the "employee" elevator. Inside was the elevator troll, er, attendant. On the ground floor someone with the company that provides courthouse security got on. The fun began when the attorney who got on board with me in the basement stepped out of the car in order for someone in back to get out. When he stepped back in the security person asked if he had a badge.
He said that he was an attorney who got on the elevator in the basement and that he didn't have a courthouse badge. She tried to tell him that this was an employees-only elevator and that he was only given the privilege of riding the elevator because the other one was broken. He told her that the elevators belonged to the county, not the DA's office, and that anyone should be able to ride them. She took offense to the logic of his argument, but couldn't come up with anything intelligent to say.
After the attorney got off the elevator, someone looked toward the elevator troll, er, attendant, and tried to apologize for the lawyer's behavior. The consensus seemed to be that he was a jerk to insist that since the elevator was built with county funds that the residents of Harris County were entitled to use it. As I stepped out on my floor I turned around and told the elevator troll, er, attendant, that the other lawyer was right.
This notion that someone employees of the courts and the DA's office are entitled to special privileges because they work for the county is absurd. We all pay their salaries. We all pay the bills to keep the lights on and the elevators functioning. There is already a vast gulf between those who prosecute crimes and the folks who come in and out of the courthouse on a daily basis. Walling them off further by allowing them to use a special elevator while defendants and defenders wait around in a crowded lobby for the rest of the elevators distorts their perspective even more.
No 163rd Game in Fantasy Baseball
This past weekend was final weekend of the Criminal Defense Lawyers Invitational Fantasy Baseball League. This year's champion - who led it from start to finish - is former Galveston County prosecutor Vik Vij. Mr. Vij left the DA's office during the course of the season to open a criminal defense practice. I think it was because he was afraid he'd be disqualified if he stayed with the DA's office.
Congratulations, Vik.
Death of a Legend
In 1969 college football celebrated its centennial year. The final weekend of the college football season say two undefeated teams square off in The Game of the Century. President Richard Nixon was on hand in Fayetteville as the top-ranked Texas Longhorns squared off with the second-ranked Arkansas Razorbacks.
For three quarters it looked as though the home team would prevail. As the fourth quarter began the Razorbacks had a 14-0 lead and things were bleak for the visitors.
On the first play of the fourth quarter Texas quarterback James Street scrambled for a touchdown. Darrell Royal then sent the offense back on the field to attempt a two-point conversion. The decision had been made long before Street found the end zone. Coach Royal's gamble paid off and the lead was cut to 14-8.
After intercepting a Razorback pass in the end zone the Horns drove down the field but got bogged down near midfield with a fourth-and-three. Coach Royal called for a long pass to the tight end Randy Peschel. Street delivered the ball, Peschel hauled it in and two plays later Texas scored what would prove to be the winning points.
James Street died yesterday of a heart attack. Rest in pace, James, you will forever be a Texas legend.
And, so, here are some burnt ends for today...
The Elevator Troll
So there I am, pulling my cart behind me, walking through the tunnel complex until I get to the criminal courthouse. I go in the door and down the hallway toward the elevators. There are two elevators that travel to the basement of the building. One is a normal elevator that goes up to the 10th floor (there are 20 floors in the courthouse). That elevator is accessible to anyone.
The other elevator has a keypad next to the call button that only those with county badges can access. That elevator is special - it goes all the way to the top of the building so you don't have to change elevators on the 10th floor.
On this particular day the regular elevator wasn't working so everyone who entered through the tunnel got to use the "employee" elevator. Inside was the elevator troll, er, attendant. On the ground floor someone with the company that provides courthouse security got on. The fun began when the attorney who got on board with me in the basement stepped out of the car in order for someone in back to get out. When he stepped back in the security person asked if he had a badge.
He said that he was an attorney who got on the elevator in the basement and that he didn't have a courthouse badge. She tried to tell him that this was an employees-only elevator and that he was only given the privilege of riding the elevator because the other one was broken. He told her that the elevators belonged to the county, not the DA's office, and that anyone should be able to ride them. She took offense to the logic of his argument, but couldn't come up with anything intelligent to say.
After the attorney got off the elevator, someone looked toward the elevator troll, er, attendant, and tried to apologize for the lawyer's behavior. The consensus seemed to be that he was a jerk to insist that since the elevator was built with county funds that the residents of Harris County were entitled to use it. As I stepped out on my floor I turned around and told the elevator troll, er, attendant, that the other lawyer was right.
This notion that someone employees of the courts and the DA's office are entitled to special privileges because they work for the county is absurd. We all pay their salaries. We all pay the bills to keep the lights on and the elevators functioning. There is already a vast gulf between those who prosecute crimes and the folks who come in and out of the courthouse on a daily basis. Walling them off further by allowing them to use a special elevator while defendants and defenders wait around in a crowded lobby for the rest of the elevators distorts their perspective even more.
No 163rd Game in Fantasy Baseball
This past weekend was final weekend of the Criminal Defense Lawyers Invitational Fantasy Baseball League. This year's champion - who led it from start to finish - is former Galveston County prosecutor Vik Vij. Mr. Vij left the DA's office during the course of the season to open a criminal defense practice. I think it was because he was afraid he'd be disqualified if he stayed with the DA's office.
Congratulations, Vik.
Death of a Legend
In 1969 college football celebrated its centennial year. The final weekend of the college football season say two undefeated teams square off in The Game of the Century. President Richard Nixon was on hand in Fayetteville as the top-ranked Texas Longhorns squared off with the second-ranked Arkansas Razorbacks.
For three quarters it looked as though the home team would prevail. As the fourth quarter began the Razorbacks had a 14-0 lead and things were bleak for the visitors.
On the first play of the fourth quarter Texas quarterback James Street scrambled for a touchdown. Darrell Royal then sent the offense back on the field to attempt a two-point conversion. The decision had been made long before Street found the end zone. Coach Royal's gamble paid off and the lead was cut to 14-8.
After intercepting a Razorback pass in the end zone the Horns drove down the field but got bogged down near midfield with a fourth-and-three. Coach Royal called for a long pass to the tight end Randy Peschel. Street delivered the ball, Peschel hauled it in and two plays later Texas scored what would prove to be the winning points.
James Street died yesterday of a heart attack. Rest in pace, James, you will forever be a Texas legend.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Is this the end of the Mack Brown era?
Ah, yes, the 2013 Longhorn football season is going up in flames.
After the blow-out loss to BYU, Mack Brown sacrificed Manny Diaz to the football gods. It didn't work. The Horns looked every bit as lost in the second half against Ole Miss as they looked up in Provo the week before.
Why Manny Diaz still had a job when Texas kicked off the 2013 is a mystery to me. Last year's defense was the worst defense in program history. There were analysts that predicted good things for Texas this season. They based this prediction on the 19 returning starters the Horns would have coming back. They would be the most experienced team in the Big XII this season.
They pointed out key defensive players who would be back after having their 2012 season cut short by injury. But how did that square with the fact that the Longhorn defense was better at the end of the season - after losing those players to injury - than it was earlier in the season?
Greg Robinson was given an impossible job when Mack Brown named him defensive coordinator the day after the beat down in Provo. How on earth was he supposed to come in and rescue a defense that couldn't tackle and was every bit as bad as last year's monstrosity?
The University of Texas gets to cherry pick its recruiting class. Texas doesn't recruit, the saying goes, Texas selects. And that's where there's a disconnect. Year and after year Texas pulls in one of the best recruiting classes - but what happens to that talent? Why isn't Texas competing for the national championship (or even the Big XII title) every year?
Either the talent isn't as good as advertised - or the coaching isn't up to par. Maybe the coach as CEO model used by Mack Brown isn't good enough to make Texas a top tier team year after year. Maybe it's the quality of the assistant coaches. Whichever it is, it all falls on Mack Brown's shoulders.
I don't know if it's time for Mack Brown to step aside. We are now in the midst of four years of mediocrity following the excellence of the Vince Young and Colt McCoy years. When Mack Brown came aboard the program had been mediocre for the better part of two decades. Mack Brown reloaded and built the Longhorns into a machine - winning ten or more games every year for a decade. I don't know if he can rebuild it this time.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Are y'all ready for some football?
Well it's that time of the year again. Fall is approaching. Temperatures are falling (to the lower 90's). And the natives are back on the 40 Acres.
It's time for another season of college football and I will be in Austin this evening with my youngest daughter to watch the 'Horns kick off their 2013 campaign. It will be her first trip to Memorial Stadium and I think she will be blown away by the experience.
So just kick back and enjoy some of my other favorite college fight songs:
But then there's this story about how television has become the tail that wags the dog of college football.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
The passing of a legend
The University of Texas lost an icon yesterday with the death of coaching legend Darrell Royal. Coach Royal led the Longhorns out of the wastelands and into the promised land, winning two national titles, 11 conference titles and 10 Cotton Bowls during his tenure.
He and Emory Bellard (later the head coach at Texas A&M), developed the wishbone offense that took the option to a whole new level. In the wishbone the quarterback was joined in the backfield by a fullback and two tailbacks. The quarterback then had the option to hand it to the fullback, pitch it to a tailback or take the ball up the field himself.
Once Coach Royal was asked why his teams didn't pass the ball more. He told the reporter that when you pass the ball only three things can happen and two of them, interception and incompletion, were bad. But the play he is remembered most for is the long pass on fourth down in the "Game of the Century" in 1969 against Arkansas in which Texas rallied to win 15-14 and was awarded the national championship.
Coach Royal did not care for his players celebrating after scoring touchdowns. He felt you should act like you've been there before and plan on being back in the future. If you've ever seen video of Earl Campbell in college or in the NFL he never spiked the ball and he never carried on after scoring. He just tossed the ball to the referee after he crossed the goal line.
The phrase he's most well-known for was his reply when a reporter asked why he wouldn't change things up when the Longhorns were in the midst of a losing streak. Coach Royal's answer was that you've got to dance with the one who brung ya'.
For almost two decades Texas coaches were compared to Darrell Royal. After his retirement, the University hired former assistant Fred Akers to take over the program. No matter what Akers did during his time in Austin, it was never good enough. It was never good enough because Fred Akers wasn't Darrell Royal.
And neither were David McWilliams or John Mackovic. It wasn't until Mack Brown came along that the shadow of Darrell Royal receded.
Rest in peace, Coach, and hook 'em!
He and Emory Bellard (later the head coach at Texas A&M), developed the wishbone offense that took the option to a whole new level. In the wishbone the quarterback was joined in the backfield by a fullback and two tailbacks. The quarterback then had the option to hand it to the fullback, pitch it to a tailback or take the ball up the field himself.
Once Coach Royal was asked why his teams didn't pass the ball more. He told the reporter that when you pass the ball only three things can happen and two of them, interception and incompletion, were bad. But the play he is remembered most for is the long pass on fourth down in the "Game of the Century" in 1969 against Arkansas in which Texas rallied to win 15-14 and was awarded the national championship.
Coach Royal did not care for his players celebrating after scoring touchdowns. He felt you should act like you've been there before and plan on being back in the future. If you've ever seen video of Earl Campbell in college or in the NFL he never spiked the ball and he never carried on after scoring. He just tossed the ball to the referee after he crossed the goal line.
The phrase he's most well-known for was his reply when a reporter asked why he wouldn't change things up when the Longhorns were in the midst of a losing streak. Coach Royal's answer was that you've got to dance with the one who brung ya'.
For almost two decades Texas coaches were compared to Darrell Royal. After his retirement, the University hired former assistant Fred Akers to take over the program. No matter what Akers did during his time in Austin, it was never good enough. It was never good enough because Fred Akers wasn't Darrell Royal.
And neither were David McWilliams or John Mackovic. It wasn't until Mack Brown came along that the shadow of Darrell Royal receded.
Rest in peace, Coach, and hook 'em!
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Don't mess with Texas
There is ugly. And then there's ugly.
But the uniforms that Texas Tech will be wearing today when they host the University of Texas are absolutely atrocious. It's one thing, as Paul Lukas would say, to desecrate Old Glory - but it's an entirely different thing to desecrate the Texas flag.
Meanwhile the Longhorns will be wearing their classic road uniforms - white helmets, white jerseys and white pants. The Longhorns don't go for the special one-off uniforms. As Coach Darrell Royal used to say, the uniforms are work clothes - and work clothes don't need to be fancy.
The 'Horns may not be on the same plateau as they were during the Vince Young and Colt McCoy days, but one fact remains. When you're good and you have a reputation, there's no need to monkey around with your uniforms.
Meanwhile the Longhorns will be wearing their classic road uniforms - white helmets, white jerseys and white pants. The Longhorns don't go for the special one-off uniforms. As Coach Darrell Royal used to say, the uniforms are work clothes - and work clothes don't need to be fancy.
The 'Horns may not be on the same plateau as they were during the Vince Young and Colt McCoy days, but one fact remains. When you're good and you have a reputation, there's no need to monkey around with your uniforms.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Problems on the Forty Acres
36 points and 576 yards against Oklahoma State.
48 points and 460 yards against West Virginia.
63 points and 677 yards against Oklahoma.
50 points and 607 yards against Baylor.
That's what the Texas defense has given up the last four weeks. Somehow the Longhorns came out of it with two wins (one aided by what looked to be a bad call).
At its core, defense in football is very simple. You contain the ball carrier. You hit the ball carrier. You wrap your arms around the ball carrier. You take the ball carrier to the ground. Forget about schemes and blitz packages and nickels and dimes and every other variant of defense that's out there. It all starts and ends with tackling.
Phil Steele, the college football guru, had the Texas defense ranked high at the beginning of the season. According to Mr. Steele, the UT defensive line was ranked 4th. Their linebacker corps was ranked 20th. The defensive backfield came in as his number 1 ranked unit.
How wrong could one person be.
The Texas defense, and I'm not certain defense is the right word, has been downright horrible this season. Not one game has passed without someone gashing the Texas defense for a long touchdown run - well, except for New Mexico (but their main goal seemed to be to keep Texas under 100 points).
Mack Brown brought in Manny Diaz from Mississippi State two years ago to replace Will Muschamp who took the head coaching gig at Florida. Mr. Diaz was supposed to be the next big thing among defensive coordinators. Lots of pressure and exotic blitz packages were supposed to take Texas to the tops of the polls. Not quite.
The Longhorns lost a number of defensive starters this past season - but, as Texas fans know, the Longhorns just go out and reload every year. The saying is that Texas doesn't recruit, Texas picks who it wants. The recruiting classes under Mack Brown have been in the top 5 nationally most years.
And that raises an important question. Are the recruiting classes not as good as we've been led to believe, or do they just not receive the coaching they need to succeed? Judging by the missed tackles I'm seeing week in and week out, I have a feeling that it's the latter. And, if it is the latter, then Mr. Diaz is the one holding the bag.
If Mr. Diaz had any self respect he'd hand Mack Brown his resignation letter first thing Monday morning so the Longhorn Nation can put this nightmare behind it. I don't care how aggressive his defenses are supposed to be. I don't care how often they come on crazy blitz packages. I want to see them tackle people and keep them out of the end zone.
Please, Mack, fire Manny Diaz now.
48 points and 460 yards against West Virginia.
63 points and 677 yards against Oklahoma.
50 points and 607 yards against Baylor.
That's what the Texas defense has given up the last four weeks. Somehow the Longhorns came out of it with two wins (one aided by what looked to be a bad call).
At its core, defense in football is very simple. You contain the ball carrier. You hit the ball carrier. You wrap your arms around the ball carrier. You take the ball carrier to the ground. Forget about schemes and blitz packages and nickels and dimes and every other variant of defense that's out there. It all starts and ends with tackling.
Phil Steele, the college football guru, had the Texas defense ranked high at the beginning of the season. According to Mr. Steele, the UT defensive line was ranked 4th. Their linebacker corps was ranked 20th. The defensive backfield came in as his number 1 ranked unit.
How wrong could one person be.
The Texas defense, and I'm not certain defense is the right word, has been downright horrible this season. Not one game has passed without someone gashing the Texas defense for a long touchdown run - well, except for New Mexico (but their main goal seemed to be to keep Texas under 100 points).
Mack Brown brought in Manny Diaz from Mississippi State two years ago to replace Will Muschamp who took the head coaching gig at Florida. Mr. Diaz was supposed to be the next big thing among defensive coordinators. Lots of pressure and exotic blitz packages were supposed to take Texas to the tops of the polls. Not quite.
The Longhorns lost a number of defensive starters this past season - but, as Texas fans know, the Longhorns just go out and reload every year. The saying is that Texas doesn't recruit, Texas picks who it wants. The recruiting classes under Mack Brown have been in the top 5 nationally most years.
And that raises an important question. Are the recruiting classes not as good as we've been led to believe, or do they just not receive the coaching they need to succeed? Judging by the missed tackles I'm seeing week in and week out, I have a feeling that it's the latter. And, if it is the latter, then Mr. Diaz is the one holding the bag.
But even though the Longhorns gave up more points on Saturday than they did in either of those shootouts, Diaz said he's take the outcome anyway.
"There are a lot of things we need to fix," Diaz said. "But there are a lot of things that are encouraging."Those comments from Manny Diaz were taken from an article in the Houston Chronicle (the mobile edition) that has since been edited. Those comments tell you all you need to know about Mr. Diaz and the reason he should not be working at the defensive coordinator at the University of Texas. There was nothing encouraging about what the defense did on Saturday night.
If Mr. Diaz had any self respect he'd hand Mack Brown his resignation letter first thing Monday morning so the Longhorn Nation can put this nightmare behind it. I don't care how aggressive his defenses are supposed to be. I don't care how often they come on crazy blitz packages. I want to see them tackle people and keep them out of the end zone.
Please, Mack, fire Manny Diaz now.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Swinging the sledgehammer
In 1987, the NCAA leveled the heaviest sanction against a member institution in its history when it banned SMU from playing football for one year. The program had a history of run-ins with the NCAA over the previous 30 years.
The death blow was dealt when investigators once again uncovered evidence of boosters (including some who had been banned from the program) funneling payments to football players along with free apartments and cars.
SMU has never fully recovered.
In 2002, the University of Alabama was hit with probation, a post-season ban and a reduction in scholarships when it emerged that a Crimson Tide booster was paying a high school coach in Memphis to steer recruits to Tuscaloosa.
In 2010, following a four-year investigation, the NCAA sanctioned the University of Southern California with four years probation, a two year post-season ban, a loss of scholarships and the vacating of the school's 2004 national championship. The offense? Reggie Bush and his family had received improper benefits from boosters (including a house) and the athletic staff looked the other way as agents hung around with players.
What these three incidents have in common is the schools were cheating in order to put better players on the field wearing their gear. By paying players and coaches, the schools were rigging the playing field. They broke NCAA rules.
The other important thing to note is that no university has been hit with the death penalty since SMU - and it's highly unlikely that anyone else will due to effect it had on SMU's football program and due to the amount of money at play in college football.
But then along came Penn State - one of the most storied programs in all the land. Now I must confess - I can't stand Penn State. Their uniforms look more suited for a junior high school than a major college team.
Penn State wasn't accused of doing anything to give their team an unfair advantage out on the playing field.
Jerry Sandusky has already been convicted of raping several young men over a long period of time. He will spend the rest of his life in prison. Joe Paterno looked the other way and did nothing when confronted with Mr. Sandusky's actions - but he was fired and then died.
And there are others who are in the spotlight after it turned out they knew about the allegations and did nothing about it.
Graham Spanier, former President of Penn State, was forced to resign from his post. Former Athletic Director Tim Curley is facing criminal charges for not reporting the abuse to authorities. Former PSU Vice President Gary Schultz is also facing criminal charges for his role in not doing anything to stop the abuse. Tom Corbett, the Governor of Pennsylvania, is under scrutiny for not pushing the investigation while he was out raising campaign contributions from board members of Mr. Sandusky's Second Mile Foundation.
As a result, this past Monday, the NCAA wielded a sledgehammer and swung it at Penn State. The school was fined $60 million dollars, placed on five years probation, banned from the post-season for four years, had 100+ wins vacated, lost multiple scholarships over the next four years and was told their players were free to transfer to any other school without having to sit out a year.
It will be years - at least a decade - before Penn State will even be competitive again. The kids who play for the Nittany Lions did nothing. The students at Penn State did nothing. Athletes in other sports that depend on football revenue did nothing.
More importantly, Penn State did nothing to violate the NCAA's rules. Yes, what happened in State College was disgusting and inexcusable. Placing the welfare of the football program over the rape of young boys is a damning indictment of the way in which big time college athletics, and the money involved in them, have warped our sense of reality.
But we have a court system to deal with these kinds of issues. Mr. Sandusky has been found guilty and will be sanctioned. The other officials will each have their day in court. Victims of Mr. Sandusky will file claims against the university for their failure to act in an appropriate manner.
But still the fact remains that the school did not violate any NCAA rule. The sanctions levied against the program now set a dangerous precedent for the NCAA in the future. Just what type of conduct will warrant a penalty like that levied against Penn State? What crimes are so outrageous that the NCAA will step in?
Mark Emmert, the head of the NCAA, was shocked that a university would do what the administration and football staff at Penn State did. He was appalled that the school had its priorities backwards. Mr. Emmert is a hypocrite.
His organization talks about the student-athletes who compete in NCAA-sanctioned events. He praises the ideal of amateurism and sacrifice for the good of the team. He condemns those who put money ahead of a school's mission to educate.
But, at the same time, he presides over an organization that negotiates multi-billion dollar television contracts for sporting events, puts together the second-biggest gambling event in the United States and sits by idly as football coaches at public schools find themselves the highest paid public employees in the land. And all of this money is being made off the hard work of student-athletes who don't see a dime of it.
See also:
The death blow was dealt when investigators once again uncovered evidence of boosters (including some who had been banned from the program) funneling payments to football players along with free apartments and cars.
SMU has never fully recovered.
In 2002, the University of Alabama was hit with probation, a post-season ban and a reduction in scholarships when it emerged that a Crimson Tide booster was paying a high school coach in Memphis to steer recruits to Tuscaloosa.
In 2010, following a four-year investigation, the NCAA sanctioned the University of Southern California with four years probation, a two year post-season ban, a loss of scholarships and the vacating of the school's 2004 national championship. The offense? Reggie Bush and his family had received improper benefits from boosters (including a house) and the athletic staff looked the other way as agents hung around with players.
What these three incidents have in common is the schools were cheating in order to put better players on the field wearing their gear. By paying players and coaches, the schools were rigging the playing field. They broke NCAA rules.
The other important thing to note is that no university has been hit with the death penalty since SMU - and it's highly unlikely that anyone else will due to effect it had on SMU's football program and due to the amount of money at play in college football.
But then along came Penn State - one of the most storied programs in all the land. Now I must confess - I can't stand Penn State. Their uniforms look more suited for a junior high school than a major college team.
Penn State wasn't accused of doing anything to give their team an unfair advantage out on the playing field.
Jerry Sandusky has already been convicted of raping several young men over a long period of time. He will spend the rest of his life in prison. Joe Paterno looked the other way and did nothing when confronted with Mr. Sandusky's actions - but he was fired and then died.
And there are others who are in the spotlight after it turned out they knew about the allegations and did nothing about it.
Graham Spanier, former President of Penn State, was forced to resign from his post. Former Athletic Director Tim Curley is facing criminal charges for not reporting the abuse to authorities. Former PSU Vice President Gary Schultz is also facing criminal charges for his role in not doing anything to stop the abuse. Tom Corbett, the Governor of Pennsylvania, is under scrutiny for not pushing the investigation while he was out raising campaign contributions from board members of Mr. Sandusky's Second Mile Foundation.
As a result, this past Monday, the NCAA wielded a sledgehammer and swung it at Penn State. The school was fined $60 million dollars, placed on five years probation, banned from the post-season for four years, had 100+ wins vacated, lost multiple scholarships over the next four years and was told their players were free to transfer to any other school without having to sit out a year.
It will be years - at least a decade - before Penn State will even be competitive again. The kids who play for the Nittany Lions did nothing. The students at Penn State did nothing. Athletes in other sports that depend on football revenue did nothing.
More importantly, Penn State did nothing to violate the NCAA's rules. Yes, what happened in State College was disgusting and inexcusable. Placing the welfare of the football program over the rape of young boys is a damning indictment of the way in which big time college athletics, and the money involved in them, have warped our sense of reality.
But we have a court system to deal with these kinds of issues. Mr. Sandusky has been found guilty and will be sanctioned. The other officials will each have their day in court. Victims of Mr. Sandusky will file claims against the university for their failure to act in an appropriate manner.
But still the fact remains that the school did not violate any NCAA rule. The sanctions levied against the program now set a dangerous precedent for the NCAA in the future. Just what type of conduct will warrant a penalty like that levied against Penn State? What crimes are so outrageous that the NCAA will step in?
Mark Emmert, the head of the NCAA, was shocked that a university would do what the administration and football staff at Penn State did. He was appalled that the school had its priorities backwards. Mr. Emmert is a hypocrite.
His organization talks about the student-athletes who compete in NCAA-sanctioned events. He praises the ideal of amateurism and sacrifice for the good of the team. He condemns those who put money ahead of a school's mission to educate.
But, at the same time, he presides over an organization that negotiates multi-billion dollar television contracts for sporting events, puts together the second-biggest gambling event in the United States and sits by idly as football coaches at public schools find themselves the highest paid public employees in the land. And all of this money is being made off the hard work of student-athletes who don't see a dime of it.
See also:
- "Shocker: NCAA does the right thing," Jason Whitlock, Fox Sports (July 24, 2012)
- "NCAA's Mark Emmert overstepped bounds in hammering Penn State," Stewart Mandel, Sports Illustrated (July 23, 2012)
- "Winners, losers and the disappeared," Gamso for the Defense (July 24, 2012)
- "Penn State students bear brunt of NCAA sanctions for Sandusky cover-up as trustees emerge unscathed," Democracy Now! (July 24, 2012)
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
And that's the way the syndicate rolls
I'm currently in trial down on the island and my brain is fairly fried by the time I sit down to work after putting my girls down for the night. I had a picture of the sun setting over Galveston Bay that I was going to run but, for some reason, my phone has decided not to make that photo available at this time. Ditto for the shot of sunset over Pearland (admittedly not as cool).
Some night in the upcoming week, LSU and Alabama will play (once again) in the "national championship" game staged by the B(owl) C(artel) S(yndicate). Now, if memory serves me right, LSU already beat Alabama this season. And, it seems to me, that game took place in Tuscaloosa.
So what happens if Alabama wins the rematch? Does that make them the best team in the country all of a sudden? Wouldn't LSU have an argument that nothing's been decided? Isn't a loss at home worse than a loss at a neutral site? And what about that little detail that Alabama not only wasn't good enough to win their conference, they weren't even good enough to win their division.
Meanwhile, Oklahoma State beat Stanford the other night in the desert. Oklahoma State beat more ranked teams this season than Alabama. Oklahoma State beat more teams with a winning record than Alabama. Oklahoma State didn't play a lower division team in order to pad their record this season - Alabama did.
What was the difference between the two teams this year? First, Alabama lost at home to LSU while Oklahoma State lost on the road against Iowa State just a couple of days after the coach of the women's basketball team, and one of his assistants, were killed in a plane crash. Think that might've played a role in how a bunch of teenagers played that night in Ames? Second, Alabama began the season ranked higher than Oklahoma State. That was an advantage that the Cowboys could never overcome.
And that brings me to my final point - it's ridiculous that a preseason poll can determine who plays for the national championship at season's end. The voters decide where to rank a team based on how well they played the year before and how well the voter thinks they might play this season. This is college football - not the NFL - and teams undergo drastic change from season to season. Alabama's team this year was a different team than last year's Crimson Tide; and the same applies to Oklahoma State. But this faulty logic is now the basis for Alabama getting an undeserved invite to play LSU while Oklahoma State can only watch.
Some night in the upcoming week, LSU and Alabama will play (once again) in the "national championship" game staged by the B(owl) C(artel) S(yndicate). Now, if memory serves me right, LSU already beat Alabama this season. And, it seems to me, that game took place in Tuscaloosa.
So what happens if Alabama wins the rematch? Does that make them the best team in the country all of a sudden? Wouldn't LSU have an argument that nothing's been decided? Isn't a loss at home worse than a loss at a neutral site? And what about that little detail that Alabama not only wasn't good enough to win their conference, they weren't even good enough to win their division.
Meanwhile, Oklahoma State beat Stanford the other night in the desert. Oklahoma State beat more ranked teams this season than Alabama. Oklahoma State beat more teams with a winning record than Alabama. Oklahoma State didn't play a lower division team in order to pad their record this season - Alabama did.
What was the difference between the two teams this year? First, Alabama lost at home to LSU while Oklahoma State lost on the road against Iowa State just a couple of days after the coach of the women's basketball team, and one of his assistants, were killed in a plane crash. Think that might've played a role in how a bunch of teenagers played that night in Ames? Second, Alabama began the season ranked higher than Oklahoma State. That was an advantage that the Cowboys could never overcome.
And that brings me to my final point - it's ridiculous that a preseason poll can determine who plays for the national championship at season's end. The voters decide where to rank a team based on how well they played the year before and how well the voter thinks they might play this season. This is college football - not the NFL - and teams undergo drastic change from season to season. Alabama's team this year was a different team than last year's Crimson Tide; and the same applies to Oklahoma State. But this faulty logic is now the basis for Alabama getting an undeserved invite to play LSU while Oklahoma State can only watch.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Coogs done in by a weasel
The Cougars had just completed the first perfect season in school history and were hosting the Southern Mississippi Golden Eagles for the C-USA championship. One more win and a trip to lucrative BCS bowl beckoned.
And then the unthinkable happened. The Cougars were blown out in a game in which they were heavily favored. The win sent the Cougars tumbling to a second-tier New Year's Day bowl in Dallas. Instead of millions pouring into the school's coffers, UH will be lucky to break even.
While the players are taught to play to the final whistle and to never give up on the ball, Mr. Sumlin had no problem quitting on his team and hooking up with Texas A&M, who had just fired their football coach after losing to Texas on Thanksgiving night.
In the days following the Cougars' loss, I kept waiting to hear the announcement that Mr. Sumlin was taking his talents elsewhere. I even had a conversation with a friend of a friend who works at UH and he was thinking the same thing. There is little doubt in my mind that Texas A&M already knew that Mr. Sumlin would accept the coaching job when they fired Mike Sherman -- after all, the Ags had been forced to settle on Mr. Sherman after prospective coaches quit answering their phones when Dennis Francione was fired.
You can't serve two masters, Mr. Sumlin. You had a job to do - and while you were supposedly doing it you were working on your next job. You owed it to your players to lead them onto the field against Southern Miss. Only you were thinking about yourself - placing yourself above the team.
You are a weasel, Kevin Sumlin.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Just win, baby
The Longhorns win the final installment of the Lone Star Shootout. And forever's an awfully long time.
Texas Fight, Texas Fight,
And it's goodbye to A&M.
Texas Fight, Texas Fight,
And we'll put over one more win.
Texas Fight, Texas Fight,
For it's Texas that we love best.
Hail, Hail, The gang's all here,
And it's good-bye to all the rest!
And it's goodbye to A&M.
Texas Fight, Texas Fight,
And we'll put over one more win.
Texas Fight, Texas Fight,
For it's Texas that we love best.
Hail, Hail, The gang's all here,
And it's good-bye to all the rest!
(YELL)
Yea Orange! Yea White!
Yea Longhorns! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Texas Fight! Texas Fight,
Yea Texas Fight!
Texas Fight! Texas Fight,
Yea Texas Fight!
As for the Aggies... they'll be going from the 'Horns younger brother to the SEC's little b----.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)