2010 College Football

[Nevermore]

Except all of TCU's stats will count for the Big East, not the MWC, when the review takes place in 2014.

Won't matter. TCU won't maintain the records they do when they play over there. The BCS (specifically the Orange Bowl) is getting really tired of the Big East and the lack of money they are adding to the pool.

I think if the Big East keeps its current membership, even with Villanova as a 10th team, they'll manage to hang on to AQ status.  I also think it's much more likely that by 2014 they'll lose two out of Syracuse, Pittsburgh or Rutgers to the Big Ten, which will not only sink the Big East as a football conference but also prompt two or three other conferences to also expand to 14.

[Trippy]

It is weird that the Rose Bowl doesn't get the PAC-10 #2 when the #1 is in the national championship game. That was how Illinois got in a couple years back because OSU was in the title game.

In a semi-related note, my mind boggles at how Oregon could slip to #2 in the computer rankings by winning handily against a team in the top 25.

They do normally. However there's this bizarre rule about the Rose Bowl taking the non-automatic qualifier automatic qualifier if they lose a team to the National Championship Game:

For the games of January 2011 through 2014, the first year the Rose Bowl loses a team to the NCG and a team from the non-AQ group is an automatic qualifier, that non-AQ team will play in the Rose Bowl.

[Montague]

Except all of TCU's stats will count for the Big East, not the MWC, when the review takes place in 2014.

Won't matter. TCU won't maintain the records they do when they play over there. The BCS (specifically the Orange Bowl) is getting really tired of the Big East and the lack of money they are adding to the pool.

I think if the Big East keeps its current membership, even with Villanova as a 10th team, they'll manage to hang on to AQ status.  I also think it's much more likely that by 2014 they'll lose two out of Syracuse, Pittsburgh or Rutgers to the Big Ten, which will not only sink the Big East as a football conference but also prompt two or three other conferences to also expand to 14.

The Big 10 would only really want Syracuse out of those three, and then only because the BTN could get some NY eyeballs through basketball. The other slot is reserved for Notre Dame, which will probably only happen if/when NBC decides they're not worth it anymore.

[Paelos]

Newton declared eligible

I can't decide who is full of more shit, the NCAA or Cam's family.

[ghost]

Gee, you think the NCAA is putting off judgment on this so that they can reap the profits from a stellar NC game? 

[SnakeCharmer]

Newton declared eligible

I can't decide who is full of more shit, the NCAA or Cam's family.

Nobody expected that. 

NCAA:  You're ineligible!
24 hours later, during which discussions took place about a possible TCU / Oregon NCG.
NCAA:  Nevermind, you're free to play!

[Paelos]

The funniest part is they kept the inelgible part so very quiet that nobody reported on it.

HOWEVER, Vegas had already been tipped off and pulled the game from the boards. Those guys have all the connections.

[ghost]

I listened to Herbstreit talk about it at lunch.  He said it was probably a "package" deal in which the NCAA was going to do this sequence before they even declared him ineligible in the first place.  This would allow Newton to get the Heisman and the team to play in the NC without there being a question as to eligibility every week. 

So like I said-  the NCAA wants to reap the rewards and then bring the hammer down later, if need be. 

[Paelos]

So they would publically declare that he's eligible, then turn around after it's all over and say "AHA! We found this new evidence!"

Why don't they just twirl their fucking mustaches while they are at it. God I hate this system.

[ghost]

So they would publically declare that he's eligible, then turn around after it's all over and say "AHA! We found this new evidence!"

Why don't they just twirl their fucking mustaches while they are at it. God I hate this system.

They've done it before-  Derrick Rose. 

And yes, the NCAA is super shady.

[Paelos]

Yeah they did wait on Rose, but they waited to investigate until after the big game. I don't remember them investigating, declaring him eligible, and then tossing out the entire season after reversing their position.

Memphis did a half-assed investigation that shockingly turned up nothing.

[ghost]

Oh, they were investigating beforehand, it just wasn't leaked to the public by MSU before the NCAA could come out with their findings.  The Rose situation was a bit different in that it didn't involve money, but a strange SAT score, but they did wait.  Seriously though, Auburn versus TCU....... hmmm.  Which one do you think the NCAA wants in the title game versus Oregon?

[SnakeCharmer]

It just baffles me, man.  As a fan that's been through this before, and having seen it happen very recently, how can the NCAA ethically just wash their hands of it?

Basically this greenlights kids parents to shop them around to the highest bidder.  All the kid has to say is 'I didn't know'.

Bama got slammed for this sort of thing in 2001 with Albert Means.  The kid had no knowledge of it, and it wasn't even his father/mother, it was his coach.  Something like 4 years probation, 20plus scholarships, bowl ban, etc.

I get that no money has been proven to have changed hands, but does (or should) that really matter?  I really don't want to be all insane conspiracy theory the BCS reallly REALLY doesn't want an Oregon/TCU matchup so could you look the other way for juuuuust a few months about this, but this whole thing really doesn't make a bit of sense.

[SnakeCharmer]

Because the forums were freaking out on me...

So.  Paelos.  You're obviously a smart man.  And you're a lawyer.  Based upon the letter of the NCAA law, how do you interpret their interpretation of their own rules?  If that makes sense.  If you were to write a summary (I think it's called?) of how/why the NCAA ruled as they did given their history of dealing with similar situations, what would it say?  The fact that you're (mostly) impartial to the whole thing helps.

But seriously, help me make sense of these shenanigans.

[Chimpy]

I thought Paelos was an accountant?

[SnakeCharmer]

I thought he was a lawyer!

[caladein]

Yeah, pretty sure Paelos is an accountant.  Our legal eagles off the top of my head are CmdrSlack and Abagadro.

As for the NCAA's decision, they're officially worse than the BCS in my book, so college football is doomed.  Go sports!

[SnakeCharmer]

Regardless, he's pretty sharp about this kind of thing. 

Hell, if ANYONE can make sense of this - please for the love of Bear Bryant enlighten me.

[Chimpy]

The answer is money.

[ghost]

The answer is money.

Ding ding. 

If TCU plays in the national title game, the NCAA loses millions upon millions of dollars.

If Auburn was 8-4 and ranked #25 he would not be playing, probably starting about 4 games ago. 

[SnakeCharmer]

Why am I thinking that money from the BCS to the NCAA was guaranteed?

[Paelos]

Because the forums were freaking out on me...

So.  Paelos.  You're obviously a smart man.  And you're a lawyer.  Based upon the letter of the NCAA law, how do you interpret their interpretation of their own rules?  If that makes sense.  If you were to write a summary (I think it's called?) of how/why the NCAA ruled as they did given their history of dealing with similar situations, what would it say?  The fact that you're (mostly) impartial to the whole thing helps.

But seriously, help me make sense of these shenanigans.

Yes, as previously stated by the others I am in fact a CPA, not a lawyer. My interpretation is colored a bit by my own disbelief that the AJ Green incident involved $1,000 for a jersey that netted a four game suspension, and that review took weeks, not days. That being said, Georgia had an awful season, weren't going to win the SEC, and certainly weren't involved in the championship talk. However, I've read the bylaws on the subject, so brace yourself, because this isn't an easy answer.

I believe the main issue here is that two different parts of the NCAA looked at the issue. Auburn declared Cam ineligible as a school, and processed the paperwork for reinstatement to the NCAA reinstatement committee. The NCAA reinstated him as eligible without any conditions because Cam had no knowledge of the events his father engineered. However, the investigation committee will not stop because the reinstatement committee made a ruling on the current information.

Basically, this is a classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing. Auburn did this specifically to cover their ass in the press, and to say "The NCAA declared him eligible." The fact is that yes, they declared him eligible because they don't have enough evidence to warrant ineligibility today. However, instead of delaying a ruling and letting Cam twist in the wind after Auburn declared him ineligible, the NCAA simply processed the quick reinstatement.

Here's the real bottom line. Right now they can't tie Auburn to the pay for play thing with Cam's father, because it happened at Mississippi State. Therefore, Auburn is currently clean of any violation. The NCAA bylaws for trying to arrange a payment, but not actually taking one, simply don't take a position on the eligibility. They all deal with actual payments, of which we have no record (yet). HOWEVER, the SEC bylaws are much firmer that what Cam Newton's father has done is a clear violation and that whether or not he knows is irrelevant.

Right now, the SEC would be well within it's authority to declare Cam ineligible in the conference even if the NCAA doesn't. In fact, the SEC bylaws specifically say it's the duty of the commissioner to:

impose penalties and sanctions against member institutions, their athletic staff members or student-athletes, for practices and conduct which violate the spirit, as well as the letter of NCAA and SEC rules and regulations. This shall include the ability to render prospective student-athletes or current student-athletes ineligible for competition due to their involvement in a violation of NCAA or SEC rules that occurs during the individual's recruitment

Instead, Mike Slive completely blew off his responsibility. Essentially his defense was "That bylaw was created a long time ago and no commission has ever declared someone ineligible, so I'm not going to do it now." You can read up on the rest of his bullshit buck-passing here

The end result is that the SEC Commissioner is ignoring his duty, the NCAA is still investigating and will inevitably find him guilty, and the powers that be are completely trying to extend due process on the issue for just one more month because they don't want to impact the games. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I don't believe that they are willingly trying to keep TCU out. I do think that they have no desire to completely fuck up the endgame with a decision that may or may not have bylaw applicability at the NCAA level, given that we all know Auburn is a paper Tiger without Newton. That doesn't make it right. In fact, it makes them incredibly gutless.

[Chimpy]

This whole thing thus leads us all to wish that Oregon comes out and shows what they are made of and win the title game handily.

Or it leads us all to want Auburn to win, it be proven that they did some hinky stuff with regards to Newton, Auburn's title and their wins are forfeited in the off-season, and the outrage leads the NCAA to get an 8 or 16 team playoff system put in place.

At this point, whatever happens, I still think that Oregon has what it takes to win the title and I sincerely hope that them damn hippies win.

[ghost]

Why am I thinking that money from the BCS to the NCAA was guaranteed?

There may be a set amount of payoff involved from the BCS to the NCAA, but I'm quite sure that isn't the only money the NCAA gets out of the deal.  At the very minimum you have television concerns (which may be also guaranteed, but there is the future to think about) and merchandise sales. 

[Paelos]

Why am I thinking that money from the BCS to the NCAA was guaranteed?

There may be a set amount of payoff involved from the BCS to the NCAA, but I'm quite sure that isn't the only money the NCAA gets out of the deal.  At the very minimum you have television concerns (which may be also guaranteed, but there is the future to think about) and merchandise sales. 

Set payoffs from the BCS are to the conferences. Each conference with a team that qualifies automatically for the BCS gets $18M in revenue. Each team that gets in beyond that gets another $4.5M to the conference. Independents like ND get a smaller cut if they get in. Several complaints this year were also levied against the bowl and their 501(c)3 non-profit status. It was alleged that the BCS bowls were improperly paying above market salaries to their executives, and offering them zero-interest insider loans and large travel perks. Also, and most serious, the bowls were engaged with payments made to a lobbying firm and smaller campaign donations. Non-profits are specifically forbidden to make any payments to groups that try to influence legislation, lest they lose their non-profit status.

[SnakeCharmer]

NCAA edumacation stuff

The end result is that the SEC Commissioner is ignoring his duty, the NCAA is still investigating and will inevitably find him guilty, and the powers that be are completely trying to extend due process on the issue for just one more month because they don't want to impact the games. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I don't believe that they are willingly trying to keep TCU out. I do think that they have no desire to completely fuck up the endgame with a decision that may or may not have bylaw applicability at the NCAA level, given that we all know Auburn is a paper Tiger without Newton. That doesn't make it right. In fact, it makes them incredibly gutless.

See, that's the way I see it.  And actually the NCAA bylaw that applies to this is rule 12.3.3 (if I heard the guys right on this mornings sports talk radio).  Hell, the SEC rule is clear as a bell.  

So, Slive's excuse was 'it's never been enforced, we're not going to start now' and the NCAA is skirting their own rules.

GO DUCKS

[Paelos]

The bylaw in question in Article 12.3 is use of agents. Once again, sports talk shows are usually reading the summary and not actually the document itself. As we all know, you can't have an agent.

12.3.3 says "Any individual, agency or organization that represents a prospective student-athlete for compensation in placing the prospective student-athlete in a collegiate institution as a recipient of institutional financial aid shall be considered an agent or organization marketing the individual’s athletics ability or reputation."

The question is whether without your knowledge if someone can represent you, and if there was any compensation involved. Also, since it was his parent, the by-laws are a little murkier since parents are not held to the same standards as 3rd party paid agents. Obviously, your parent is going to help you decide which college to attend, so they can't be your agent or it breaks the by-law. Also, the bylaws don't define who is an agent for the purposes of representation or even "representation" in the bylaws related to knowledge, which I find to be a complete oversight.

I don't believe in this case that Cam's father was acting as his agent under the terms of the by-law, nor do I think he broke the spirit of the by-law which is to keep amateurs away from professional agents.

[Paelos]

Let's all take a look back at the preseason polls to see how they fared this season!

1. Alabama (55) 14-0 1,469 1  
2. Ohio State (4) 11-2 1,392 5
3. Florida 13-1 1,245 3  
4. Texas  13-1 1,240 2  
5. Boise State  14-0 1,215 4  
6. Virginia Tech 10-3 1,052 10
7. TCU 12-1 1,051 6
8. Oklahoma 8-5 1,035 NR
9. Nebraska 10-4 1,001 14
10. Iowa 11-2 952 7  
11. Oregon 10-3 940 11  
12. Wisconsin 10-3 778 16
13. Miami (Fla.) 9-4 728 19  
14. Penn State 11-2 508 8  
15. Pittsburgh 10-3 492 15  
16. LSU 9-4 476 17
17. Georgia Tech 11-3 455 13  
18. North Carolina 8-5 445 NR  
19. Arkansas 8-5 438 NR  
20. Florida State 7-6 374 NR
21. Georgia 8-5 312 NR  
22. Oregon State 8-5 263 NR  
23. Auburn 8-5 260 NR  
24t. Utah 10-3 169 18
24t. West Virginia 9-4 169 22

[Paelos]

Words can't describe how Michigan State fans must feel watching UCONN get a BCS bowl, while a team they beat in Wisconsin, with the same overall record, gets the Big Ten title and the bid.

Enjoy the Capital One bowl against Alabama. 

[caladein]

Connecticut v. Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.  Be there!

[Azuredream]

What's the spread on a game like that? 3 touchdowns? They should just match up Connecticut with the ACC champion, but even then I'm pretty sure they'd still get killed.

[Abagadro]

And the Utes get to play the tater zoobs!    With our backup QB and right tackle. 

[Chimpy]

Illinois qualified for a bowl.

Means Guenther will use this as another excuse to keep Zook around because they "went to a bowl".

[ghost]

And the Utes get to play the tater zoobs!    With our backup QB and right tackle.  

I hope you guys pound the fuck out of them.  


Edit:  And there seems to be a lot of good quality bowls this year.  Should be fun.

[WayAbvPar]

Hurray! UW gets to go to a bowl.


To play Nebraska, who absolutely destroyed them in September. 

Welp.