The SEC has proven its dominance in the NCG and a few bowl games but its overall non-conference schedule is extremely weak in 2011.  There is, of course, Oregon at LSU and Boise at UGA to start the season and then Bama at PSU and Texas A&M at Arky a little later.  And, of course, FSU at UF in the last week.  Other than that, it is zilch.  No more Pac 12 teams.  No more Big 10 teams.  No more Big 12 teams.  There are a couple of mid-level ACC match-ups (SC has Clemson at home and UGA is on the road against Ga Tech) and some interesting match-ups with in-state teams (UAB@UF, Troy@Ark, UAB@MSU, and Samford@Aub) but this schedule does very little for our national SOS.  It also puts an inordinate amount of weight on the Oregon/LSU game and the UGA/Boise game.

I don't think we need to defend ourselves against critics but, as a fan, I sure would like to see some better non-conference games.  Wouldn't bigger non-conference games mean more money?  Has this fact escaped Mike Slive and the AD's?  Help me out here.  How did it get so bad?  And why don't the power brokers want to make it better?

Tigers take down the Bulldogs
Preseason SEC West favorite, the Miss. St. Bulldogs, lost in Auburn tonight, 65-62, to finally sink to the bottom of what has been a miserable season filled with players fighting one another, quitting the team, getting suspended for various off court problems, tweeting messages questioning the head coach's decisions, and generally bad play.  They have achieved what none of us thought possible: their season is now more embarrassing than the Auburn Tigers' feeble efforts to run a basketball program.  Hang your head in shame, Starkville.

This is a fascinating story concerning the eligibility of Kentucky recruit Enes Kanter.  On Nov. 11th Kanter was ruled ineligible by the NCAA because he accepted more benefits than allowed when playing pro basketball in Turkey.  However, immediately following the Cam Newton decision, UK immediately resubmitted the eligibility request, hoping for a different ruling in light of the Newton decision.  The article does not discuss what bearing the UK athletic department believes the Newton decision to have.  Unlike the Newton case, the NCAA has not provided an immediate ruling, even though both sides agree concerning all the relevant facts of the case.  Perhaps if Kanter was the leading scorer and rebounder on the team and UK was headed to the final four, they'd get one of those special Newton dispensations.

UPDATE: Kanter Ruled Permanently Ineligible by NCAA: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2011/infractions/20110107+kanter+rls?pageDesign=old+news+releases+template

NCAA won't rule on Enes Kanter in 2010

Kentucky won't get an answer on Turkish freshman Enes Kanter's final chance at eligibility until sometime after the new year, according to an NCAA spokesperson.

Chuck Wynne, the NCAA's director of communication strategy, said in an e-mail that any ruling on Kanter was not imminent. Kanter remains at Kentucky.

"Reports on any decision before the first of the year are wrong," Wynne wrote. "It won't happen."

Kentucky's staff has said for weeks that it was hoping for a quick resolution on the matter after it resubmitted Kanter's eligibility request once Auburn quarterback Cam Newton was ruled eligible by the NCAA.

The NCAA had ruled that Newton's father, Cecil, was shopping him to play at Mississippi State but that neither Cam nor Auburn knew about any such deal. Newton was ruled ineligible for a day and then was reinstated without penalty by the NCAA in time to play in the SEC championship game Dec. 4.

Kanter played three seasons with the Turkish club Fenerbahce from 2006 to 2009. He was on the senior club team in 2008-09. The NCAA said in a release Nov. 11 that the university and the NCAA Eligibility Center agreed on the facts that Kanter received $33,033 more than his allowable expenses for the 2008-09 season.

The new NCAA bylaw does allow possible players to play on teams with professionals. But players aren't allowed to exceed the actual and necessary expenses. Previously, players weren't allowed to be on a team with a professional without a game penalty.

"Enes took advantage of an opportunity to play at the highest level available to him, but the consequences of receiving payments above his actual expenses is not compatible with the collegiate model of sports that our members have developed," Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president of academic and membership affairs, said in the Nov. 11 release.

Kanter, who is billed as a top-five pick by most NBA personnel, has maintained that he never intended to turn professional. Kanter's father, Dr. Mehmet Kanter, told the Sporting News that if his son were to receive a one-year suspension he would return to Kentucky instead of declare for the NBA draft.

"Enes would do anything to play and help UK, his teammates and fans," Mehmet Kanter wrote to the Sporting News. "In the last two years, one thing me and Enes never discussed was him being pro. He didn't mention to me about NBA or draft and I guarantee you as a father -- if that's the NCAA's decision -- Enes will be a sophomore next year in UK."

"I know he decided to come to USA to be free in making his own decisions regarding his future, which was seeking an education and playing basketball," Mehmet Kanter said. "So he still is having hard time understanding most of the things happening the last six months. But I think support from UK staff and fans and his teammates is making it easier on him."

Instead of appealing the initial ruling Kentucky decided to resubmit the request for eligibility after Newton's decision.

"The NCAA and the University of Kentucky are still working towards resolution on this matter based upon previously agreed facts,'' Wynne wrote. "While the NCAA would always encourage more education for any prospective student-athlete, Mr. Kanter's comments will not be a factor in the decision-making progress.''

Andy Katz is a senior college basketball writer for ESPN.com. Follow him on Twitter: @ESPNAndyKatz

Mike Slive got his wish, a ruling before the SEC Championship game, and the NCAA is paying the price for it in the press.  The criticism comes not just from Bammers and sensationalist journalists, of which there is no shortage, but also from coaches, athletic directors, and even conference commissioners.  The crux of the criticism is that the NCAA had an opportunity to apply its own rules to the Cam Newton situation to leave no doubt about whether an athlete could be punished for having a parent shop him around for six figures.

This NY Times story nails the issue:

Ruling on Newton is Drawing Criticism

Delany, a former N.C.A.A. investigator who is familiar with its nuances, said in a telephone interview that the N.C.A.A. “missed an opportunity to stand up.” Scott, in his first year at the Pac-10, said his office had heard from numerous universities in the conference that had concerns about Wednesday’s decision.

Delany said he had told the N.C.A.A. his thoughts, adding that the theory behind the decision set a worrisome precedent.

“What I would say on any third-party issue is that the analysis in my view, whether you’re an assistant coach, president or a booster or a parent, is that there ought to be accountability,” Delany said. “There ought to be consequences.”

Scott noted that he did not know all the details of the case, but said: “I know there’s a concern out there about consistency and fairness application and the expectation to take an abundance of caution in looking at these cases. That’s my understanding of the way that schools and conferences are to operate.”

On Thursday, the N.C.A.A. tried to clarify its decision. Mark Emmert, the president of the N.C.A.A., said: “We recognize that many people are outraged at the notion that a parent or anyone else could ‘shop around’ a student-athlete and there would possibly not be repercussions on the student-athlete’s eligibility.”

Delany’s main complaint was with the N.C.A.A.’s use of the rule-of-agency principle — when a person is authorized to act on someone else’s behalf. The N.C.A.A. acknowledged that Newton’s father, Cecil Newton Sr., used a person with financial ties to an agent to shop his son to Mississippi State. But because Cam Newton attended Auburn and the N.C.A.A. has not found that he or Auburn had knowledge of his father’s actions, it declared Newton eligible for Saturday’s game against South Carolina.

“Here, who is closer to a player than the parent?” Delany said. “If that person is found to be shopping that player, I think the rule-of-agency principle could easily apply. I would argue in the environment we’re in that it should apply.”

Delany said the case was a reason for continuing concern about the N.C.A.A.’s ability to manage the recruiting process.

“We’ve gone to the board of directors to create bright lines, to encourage the N.C.A.A. to take creative risks to get everyone on a more level playing field,” he said. “This was an opportunity to apply a very reasonable concept. They chose to go with a very high standard instead of what’s more of a reasonable application given the facts and reality that we’re dealing with.”

NCAA Addresses Eligibility of Cam Newton

Auburn University football student-athlete Cam Newton is immediately eligible to compete, according to a decision today by the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff. The NCAA concluded on Monday that a violation of amateurism rules occurred, therefore Auburn University declared the student-athlete ineligible yesterday for violations of NCAA amateurism rules.

When a school discovers an NCAA rules violation has occurred, it must declare the student-athlete ineligible and may request the student-athlete’s eligibility be reinstated. Reinstatement decisions are made by the NCAA national office staff and can include conditions such as withholding from competition and repayment of extra benefits. Newton was reinstated without any conditions.

According to facts of the case agreed upon by Auburn University and the NCAA enforcement staff, the student-athlete’s father and an owner of a scouting service worked together to actively market the student-athlete as a part of a pay-for-play scenario in return for Newton’s commitment to attend college and play football. NCAA rules (Bylaw 12.3.3) do not allow individuals or entities to represent a prospective student-athlete for compensation to a school for an athletic scholarship.

In conjunction with the case, Auburn University has limited the access Newton’s father has to the athletics program and Mississippi State has disassociated the involved individual.

“The conduct of Cam Newton’s father and the involved individual is unacceptable and has no place in the SEC or in intercollegiate athletics,” said Mike Slive, Southeastern Conference Commissioner. “The actions taken by Auburn University and Mississippi State University make it clear this behavior will not be tolerated in the SEC.”

“Our members have established rules for a fair and equal recruitment of student-athletes, as well as to promote integrity in the recruiting process,” said Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice president for academic and membership affairs. “In determining how a violation impacts a student-athlete’s eligibility, we must consider the young person’s responsibility. Based on the information available to the reinstatement staff at this time, we do not have sufficient evidence that Cam Newton or anyone from Auburn was aware of this activity, which led to his reinstatement. From a student-athlete reinstatement perspective, Auburn University met its obligation under NCAA bylaw 14.11.1. Under this threshold, the student-athlete has not participated while ineligible.” 

“We are pleased that the NCAA has agreed with our position that Cam Newton has been and continues to be eligible to play football at Auburn University,” Auburn University Director of Athletics Jay Jacobs said.  “We appreciate the diligence and professionalism of the NCAA and its handling of this matter. “

During the reinstatement process, NCAA staff review each case on its own merits based on the specific facts. Staff decisions are made based on a number of factors including guidelines established by the Division I NCAA Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, as well as any mitigating factors presented by the university.

Reinstatement decisions are independent of the NCAA enforcement process and typically are made once the facts of the student-athlete’s involvement are determined. The reinstatement process is likely to conclude prior to the close of an investigation. It is NCAA policy not to comment on current, pending or potential investigations.

ESPN pay site lists McShay's projected draft picks.  For all of the questions raised on RBR about Dareus, he sure is gonna make a lot of money next year.  I'm not sure why we aren't seeing more evidence of this on the field.  Is it that he is being double teamed on every play and the others aren't getting it done?  Whatever the reasons, the NFL still seems very high on Dareus.  I just hope he gives us some evidence of this on Saturday.

Soundbite version: Pointing out that fans say stupid things is a pretty stupid thing to do. 

Longer version:

Insomuch as complaining about stupid fans is just venting frustration, fine, but I'm starting to think that some of you actually believe you've discovered that fans say stupid things, and that when they do so you need to point this out to everyone.  If you're in that camp, take a moment to consider how patently stupid that is. 

First:  When you point out that fans say stupid things, you're not wrong.  But you're stupid to do so nonetheless because a fan by definition makes stupid remarks.  It is a tautology to say that fans make stupid remarks.  Have you ever looked up "fanatic" in the dictionary?  Weeping Jesus on the cross!  You have to be stupid just to be a fan.  You're view of reality has to be off kilter.  You have to believe and say things that are stupid.  So that even if you make just a short little comment on your favorite website, because you are a fan, there is a very high degree of probability that it is a stupid remark.  The natural result of this axiom is that when fans say something stupid, they're just being fans.  It's just that simple. 

Second:  There are worse things than being stupid.  We've established the fact that many fans, if not all, make stupid remarks.  Hell, even successful coaches and sports media personalities have been known to make incredibly stupid remarks.  That's going to happen.  It's just part of being a fan.  You get caught up in the frustration and/or excitement, and then you say something really stupid.  Odds are that most fans realize when they've said something stupid.  That doesn't mean that fans should stop saying things.  Where's the fun in that?  If fans didn't say things, God forbid, there'd be no more "Meltdown Tuesday."  For the greater good, please don't discourage fans from saying stupid things.

Third:  The experience, character, and personality of fans are exaggerated whenever they're talking about their teams.  Again, that's what a fan is by definition.  Most fans have no experience as a football coach, so they're probably going to sound like morons when they talk about their team's play calling.  If you are a worrier, then you will worry obsessively about your team.  If you are optimistic, then you will express extreme optimism in discussions about your team.  And if you like to argue, then you're going to argue about your team with other fans.  Our best and worst features are multiplied when we talk about our favorite team.

So, if you're in this camp - pointing out when and where fans are stupid - well . . .  you know the guy who walks out of a science fiction movie saying, "It was unrealistic."  Or the one who points out the false assumptions in a funny joke.  Or the one who says, "Shakespeare is only fiction."

You know the type?

Yeah... you're that guy. Congrats.

Pat Forde's column today (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=5755060) has an interesting quote from the Butler basketball coach about how the NCAA Tournament made it possible for Butler to get to the championship game.  It's supposed to be an argument for a playoff in college football.  But the quote from Coach Brad Stevens helps to explain why I don't want a playoff in college football.  He says, "The best thing about the NCAA tournament is that the talking doesn't matter."

The talking is one of the things that I love about college football.  I love arguing with fans from other conferences about why the SEC is a stronger conference and should get consideration ahead of other conferences.  I love arguing about whether Boise St. or TCU is good enough to play in the championship game (BTW, I think they are good enough to win one game against anyone; the problem is that their obstacles are not as challenging as other teams.)  A playoff would make all of this bantering irrelevant.  And I would miss it.

What I love about the banter is its dependence upon myth and mystery.  I know that most national championships in football are mythical; that's what I love about them.  I love being able to argue that Bama was robbed of one in 1966.  That is the stuff of legends.  It is mysterious and beautiful in a way that a playoff absolutely cannot be.  I don't mean to say that a playoff is worthless; I only mean to say that with a playoff we would give up much.  And I would miss the talk.