SBNation.com User Blog: txtwstr7

Myck Kabongo, the NCAA, and the Media

txtwstr7 — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 22:58:57 -0000

Heading into college basketball season, the dominant narrative surrounding the Texas Longhorns revolved around the uncertain status of Myck Kabongo. For several weeks, the player, team, and overall program remained in limbo, as the NCAA continued their investigation. While awaiting a final ruling from the NCAA over his eligibility, Texas kept Kabongo firmly rooted to the bench as part of a self-imposed punishment. This eventually led to an absurd situation against UCLA, as Shabazz Muhammad scored 16 points against Texas while Kabongo stayed on the bench. If only someone had discussed Kabongo's case on an airplane...

Finally, near the end of UT's victory over North Carolina, reports broke that the NCAA was going to suspend Kabongo for the entire season. These reports were mentioned during the ESPN broadcast of the game and led to an extremely terse interview with Rick Barnes, who noted "the process" was still ongoing. This process officially ended a few days later, as the NCAA formally announced Kabongo's season-long suspension was being reduced to 23 games.

After thinking through everything, I have a few outstanding issues over this whole ordeal. Before moving any further, let me be clear: I'm not trying to turn Myck Kabongo into a martyr. He's not blameless, and he definitely deserved a suspension. That said, I'm upset with how this situation played out internally, externally, and through the media. Ultimately, I just wish the discourse was over what actually happened in this case, instead of what was initially reported. Let's backtrack a bit, and I'll explain what I mean.

During the UNC broadcast, the first report over Kabongo's season-long suspension came from Pat Forde and Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo Sports. This report explained "in most impermissible benefits situations, players usually are suspended from three to 10 games and ordered to repay the amount of the benefits received. In this case, the penalty was made more severe because Kabongo provided inaccurate information to NCAA investigators when he was interviewed." Additionally, the report pointed out "the season-long ban is consistent with the penalty applied to former Oklahoma State wide receiver Dez Bryant in 2009 when he lied to the NCAA."

This explanation for the season-long suspension--that Kabongo lied to the NCAA--was reported everywhere. It was even mentioned on the Sportscenter broadcast right after the UNC game. I don't remember seeing a single report contradicting this basic assertion. All in all, this explanation seemed to completely encapsulate the situation. Kabongo would have been suspended for 3-10 games, but, since he lied to the NCAA, he was being suspended for the entire season. So it goes.

Following the initial report, Kabongo's story received a lot of attention and coverage from the national media. As shown by this excellent Barking Carnival article from jc25, the media's reaction to the suspension was mostly hostile. However, while most pundits were opposed to the season-long suspension, many articles acknowledged the Dez Bryant case as a legitimate precedent. After this initial flurry of coverage, the entire issue looked like it could be put to bed.

Then, on the Friday before Christmas, the NCAA unexpectedly announced Kabongo's season-long suspension was being reduced to 23 games. The full NCAA press release contained some critical pieces of new information. Most importantly, the release explained "according to the facts of the case submitted by the university, Kabongo accepted airfare, personal training instruction and then provided false and misleading information during two separate interviews with university officials." Additionally, in an article published by ESPN over the suspension reduction, Rick Barnes said Kabongo "made some mistakes early in this process, and he put himself in a tough position. That said, he was truthful and forthcoming when he talked with the NCAA." In this same article, an NCAA spokesperson noted the punishment was "based on the totality of the violations and not separated out" into punishments for accepting improper benefits and being dishonest.

In conjunction, the press release and ESPN article seem to firmly establish that Kabongo only lied to school officials. By these joint accounts, it appears Kabongo actually told the truth to the NCAA investigators, which contradicts the information from the initial report from Yahoo Sports. So, cool story, Hansel...why does this even matter?

Well, to date, I cannot find a single case where a player was suspended by the NCAA for lying to their own school's compliance officials, when they subsequently told the truth to the NCAA. This was backed up by statements from Jay Bilas during the Texas-Michigan State game. After noting Kabongo only lied to school officials, Bilas said something like "those types of issues are usually handled internally," which makes a lot more sense to me.

Let me put it this way. If I lied to my parents, they would have punished me. If I lied to the police, they would have charged me with a series of offenses. But if I lied to my parents and then told the truth to the police, then I don't see how the police could tack on any additional punishment. Which is exactly what seems to be the case here.

Plain and simple, Kabongo accepted $475 worth of impermissible benefits. As explained by the Yahoo Sports article from Forde and Wojnarowski, that's usually a 3-10 game punishment. However, due to lying to UT Compliance (and not the NCAA), Kabongo was initially given a season-long ban, which was later reduced to 23 games. As noted above, the explanation given by the NCAA was that the punishment "is based on the totality of the violations and not separated out" into benefits and dishonesty. I think that's crazy, especially since the additional violations (i.e. lying to UT Compliance) don't appear to have ever resulted in additional punishment for any other player.

In summary, while I'm still a little confused about the overall justification for Kabongo's suspension, I'm also extremely disappointed with how this all played out in the media. Once again, look at how this played out. During the UNC Broadcast, ESPN relayed the report that Kabongo was suspended "for lying to NCAA investigators." Everyone immediately made the Dez Bryant comparison, and, while most people were sympathetic to Myck, they also understood there was an existing precedent for the punishment. Except, as we know now, that was a false comparison. The entire country was led to believe Myck lied to the NCAA, presumably justifying his punishment, and no one really paid any attention to the discrepancies in the new reports. In fact, most people are glad the NCAA reduced the punishment for lying to 23 games, without ever discussing the further issues of why this case is different.

Conclusion

One of my pet peeves with articles over these types of situations is the player involved is often used as a mere platform to give a personal opinion. With this article, I tried to avoid this temptation. This article was primarily written to facilitate further discussion over the specific case of Myck Kabongo and how it played out in the NCAA and the media.

To that extent, I fully acknowledge there might be some angles to the suspension that I'm missing, and I'd be happy to be wrong. By and large, I'd rather find out Kabongo's suspension is firmly rooted in existing precedent, rather than remain convinced that his suspension is breaking new ground. While I've asked several BON authors and friends to proofread this piece, I think everyone is still is a little perplexed over exactly what happened.

Ultimately, Myck Kabongo made a mistake and deserved to be suspended. Unfortunately, I simply have not seen a comprehensive explanation that sufficiently justifies the length of his original or reduced suspension.

Hook ‘em!

Who Is Mack Brown?

txtwstr7 — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 00:13:36 -0000

Even though I'm an avid reader, I've never really been attracted to biographies. Too often, I find that biographies merely turn into hagiographies. As a reader, I find nothing more frustrating than a slanted perspective that willfully obfuscates or even completely whitewashes the truth. Lately, I've been burrowing myself into historical books over major events, or simply switching to fiction. To me, stories are typically about more than one person, and I don't want to miss the forest for an extended analysis of one gigantic and impressive tree. All that said, in the context of college football, the opposite approach might be preferable.

Due to being cooped up by Hurricane Sandy the past few days, I've plowed through a voluminous series of articles over college football. More specifically, I've read through hundreds of articles outlining the narratives of individual players, programs, conferences, and BCS possibilities. All in all, there is no shortage of interesting stories from this season.

However, above all else, I've been fascinated by the recent series of articles over Bill Snyder, his family, and his program. More than anything, I've been astounded by how similarly these articles cut to the core of his personality and his leadership style. Let me show you what I'm talking about.

From Dan Wetzel:

Everyone wants to know how Snyder does it. How he does what no one else has ever done. How he gets K-State to climb this high.

"You talk about the 16 goals," he said. "I believe our players embrace those values, and that's true to what they are. They are the same values that you teach your son or your daughter. It's not rocket science. It's just things I believe personally, and I think our players do, that allow people to become successful whether its life, business, community."

From Jeffrey Martin:

"The best I can say is what I said to our youngsters from the very outset: If you care about improvement, if you work hard and be committed to what we're doing, if you'll care about your football team, if you'll show discipline - all of the things you'll want your child, when that time comes, to possess, that you'll want to teach your children, then we'll have no issues whatsoever," Snyder said.

From Sam Mellinger:

"It's all the same," Kevin Lockett says. "People want to know how he's different, what he's doing now compared to what he did with us, and I'm telling you: It's exactly the same. I hear the same things from my son that I heard from Coach when I was there. It's unbelievable."

If there is one critical common denominator between the original Manhattan Miracle and version 2.0, it is attitude. Snyder never talks much about results, only about "getting a little better every day," because if you're sweeping up a landfill, you have to take it one pile at a time.

In particular, my favorite line from the Bill Snyder articles is also perhaps the simplest. From Gene Wojciechowski:

"I am who I am," said Snyder, as if that explains it all.

Actually... maybe it does.

That last response from Snyder really jumped out at me. In fact, it's the entire basis for this article. As simple as it is, it rings true for all of us, and strikes me as particularly potent and powerful in the context of college football -- and especially the head coaches who lead and define their teams. We tend to look at college football from such a wide lens, but at the end of the day a lot of what matters boils down to such a simple concept... when it comes to most college football coaches and their programs -- what they do well, what they don't do well, how they go about doing it -- they simply are who they are.

As easy as it is to see with Bill Snyder, it's no less easy with Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, Les Miles, Bob Stoops, Steve Spurrier, Lane Kiffin, Mark Richt, Frank Beamer, Bo Pelini, and Gary Patterson. It also applied to recently retired, fired, or disgraced coaches such as Bobby Petrino, Jim Tressel, and Joe Paterno. Similarly, it looks like it will apply to newer coaches such as Will Muschamp, Chip Kelly, and Dana Holgorsen.

And, yes, the phrase applies, perhaps definitively, to Mack Brown.

To be clear, my goal for this article isn't to passionately declare whether or not Mack Brown should remain the head football coach of the University of Texas. This topic has been beaten to death in multiple threads on multiple sites, with no clear end in sight. Ultimately, when it comes to the future of Mack Brown, others have--and will--discuss the topic with much more clarity and insight than I could ever provide. As a writer, I know my own limitations, especially within the context of the other contributors to this site.

Instead, my goal for this article is much simpler. I simply want to refocus the discussion with respect to Mack Brown. Specifically, I want to revisit the lengthy "College Football: Constant Eyes of Texas" expose from Pat Forde from back in 2010. While I've read countless stories about Mack Brown, I don't think any article has ever distilled who he is--and what he represents--more than this famous Forde piece. In particular, while a lot of the commentary over the state of the program has shifted since the departures of Greg Davis, Will Muschamp, Mac McWhorter, and other members of the staff, I think it is highly instructive to look back at Mack's quotes from while they were still here.

As a point of reference, Forde's article extensively covers the program during the week of the 2010 Rice game, which Texas won 34-17. While I highly encourage everyone to immediately read (or re-read) the entire piece, I wanted to highlight a few particular quotes. For better or worse, I think certain segments from Forde's story really drill down into the overall mindset of Mack Brown. And, similar to the previously excerpted quotes from Bill Snyder, I think these excerpts help encapsulate the main themes surrounding the man, the coach, and his program.

See if you can notice a pattern in these quotes from Mack Brown:

"Boy, I'm scared. I'm worried about this team. I'm worried about it. "We've got some entitlement in this room. Got to get that fixed. Got some selfishness in this room. Got to get that fixed. This isn't Texas football. What concerns me, we've got guys in this room who have won too easy. ... You're ranked the fifth-best team in the country, and we just played OK. We have not earned that ranking."

"I own the restaurant. There are a lot of cooks, waiters and waitresses in this restaurant. They worry about their problems. I worry about all the problems."

This is Mack Brown's favorite day of a game week. The work on the game plan is largely done. The staff meetings by this stage are what Brown calls "worry meetings" -- there is no serious strategy left to be mapped out.

"Do we think you're going to play well? Yes," Brown said. "Why? Because we've seen you play well every day in practice. Do we know you're going to play well? No. That's why we're anxious.

"Really excited to have won the opener," he tells reporters. "There will be an upset today as we look around the country, and it scares you to death."

Or these:

"Fellas, good first half," he says. "I didn't see the emotion I wanted to see, on the field or on the bench. You're not having enough fun. Let's have more fun. Let's put emotion into this thing."

"Let's work with each kid to make sure we're playing with energy, passion and toughness," he says to the entire room. "We didn't have any bench enthusiasm, and I'm so tired of that. Everything this week will be about energy, desire, purpose." Brown asks Wynn to get towels to the bench players to wave in an effort to generate more sideline juice.

Brown shifts into critique mode. "I didn't see as much fun as I thought I would," he says. "We've got a little arrogance about this bunch right now."

He congratulates several freshmen on getting their first playing experience, asking each of them, "Did you have fun?"

Or these:

In the unit meetings, Brown sits in the back, mostly listening as his coordinators go through video to make sure the players are mentally attuned to formations and keys. "I need to have a presence," he says. "I'm there more to be seen than anything else. I walk in, listen, say something so they know I'm here, and that's it."

While the Horns begin their drills, Brown positions himself at midfield so he can observe the offense to his left and defense to his right. At his side are two booster friends from Dallas, Baker Montgomery and Bill Duvall -- Brown says Duvall hasn't missed a Thursday practice in the 13 years the coach has been at Texas. Brown chats occasionally with Montgomery and Duvall, but his eyes don't leave the field. If he sees something that needs correcting, he interjects. "Coaches need to understand I'm paying attention," Brown says. "And players need to know I'm watching."

In the offensive staff room, coordinator Greg Davis sits at the head of the table with clicker and laser pointer at the ready. Receivers coach Bobby Kennedy and running backs coach Major Applewhite sit to his right. Line coach Mac McWhorter and tight ends coach Bruce Chambers sit to his left. All of them chime in with their observations and opinions. Brown occupies a seat in the corner. "My job is to simply say 'Why don't we do this?'" Brown says. "I'm the bad guy. They roll their eyes when I leave.

How about this one?

All through August, Brown chided tacklers who took running backs to the ground. He chastised them for invading "the cylinder" of protective space around quarterbacks.

While I don't want to excerpt any more from the Forde piece -- seriously, make sure to (re-)read it -- there are other patterns or themes that emerge, several of which echo the issues and talking points surrounding the current football team. In fairness, Forde's piece also highlights the reasons why Mack Brown is held in such high regard. As a fan of Texas Football, there is so much in the article that outlines why we have been blessed to have Mack Brown as our football coach. But again, that's a conversation for another post. I want to look at Mack Brown and the Texas Longhorns through the lens of Bill Snyder's statement: "I am who I am."

Although the coaching staff would experience a dramatic overhaul after 2010, this program is still inseparably tied to Mack Brown and his principles. It raises the question: just how much would Pat Forde's in depth feature on Mack Brown have differed if he followed the 2012 team during the week of the Wyoming game? How different would the quotes from Mack Brown be in 2012? Would they be different at all?

Or would he still represent, as a friend of mine recently wrote, "the guy who is scared to lose instead of confident to win. The guy who stands and observes practice and has nothing of substance to say in coaching meetings. The guy who wants make sure the guys have fun regardless of what's happening on the field, seemingly without realizing that the fun will take care of itself if you're dominating teams you're supposed to dominate and playing in relevant games throughout the year."

I don't have the access (or Longhorn Network), so I can't tell you the answer for sure, but take a minute to think about it. Because while most Texas fans reasonably concluded that with the near-total staff overhaul Texas had eradicated all vestiges of 2010, the quotes from above make you wonder if anything really changed.

But however things play out, I'll still watch and support this football team. I won't be able to help it.

I am who I am.

GTFO Aggies Series: T-1 Day -- The Aggies Even Lost Halftime

txtwstr7 — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 00:52:13 -0000

During the month of June, BON authors will memorialize the final days of the UT-A&M rivalry through a series of perspectives, as seen through The Eyes of Texas, to include essays, personal reflections and commemorations of significant note.

When reflecting over the last UT-A&M football game, I remember a lot of things. I remember Ben Malena and Randy Bullock giving the Aggies an early lead. I remember Jaxon Shipley's touchdown pass to Blaine Irby. I remember the constant battles between Kenny Vaccaro and Ryan Swope. And, of course, I remember the last-minute heroics of Case McCoy and Justin Tucker.

But when looking back on that game, I also tend to think about what happened during halftime. I think about the two bands, the two formations, and the two messages that were sent. I think of my own thoughts and feelings over watching it all transpire. And, subsequently, I remember the memorable TexAgs thread that summarized the entire game and perhaps the entire rivalry.

More, after the jump...

In case you don't know, here are pictures from the performances of the bands that night. The Texas Band ended their performance by playing "Thanks for the Memories" from this formation:

Let's compare that to a picture from the performance of the Texas A&M Band:

As mentioned above, TexAgs had an excellent post-game reaction to the two halftime performances. And, yes, I'll be cherry picking a few of the comments from the linked thread:

Sips can take their well wishes and stick it

Wait? Longhorns do not have class. Nor did we show them any. Quit your whining and man up about it. There is nothing wrong with innately hating another school. No matter how much they try to pretend to show "class". I almost falcon punched the hell out of the t-sip girl standing in front of me! The *****.

Screw the sips. I don't need them pissin on my leg I know what the hell they are. If you fall for their class crap you are a fool. They are just being sips and playing to the masses for points that I could care less about getting. Good to be gone from those dorky bar be que outift looking ***s.

t.u. only shows class when they are in the spot light and to cover up what happens behind closed doors and what has been reported in the media. It was a political move. I'm glad we sawed the horns off.

Ultimately, I think these pictures and comments provide a decent encapsulation over the entire rivalry, especially in the context of its abrupt conclusion. In that final game, we thanked them, they sawed us off, and then we beat them. 76-37-5.

Conclusion

Peter Bean is supposed to wrap up this series with an epic post, but, in case he doesn't get the chance, I wanted to provide a few final thoughts.

Even though this series was given an aggressive title, my own personal feelings mirror the final message of the Texas Band. As I've said before, I think Texas A&M is a great school, and I have both friends and family who graduated from there. I'm truly sad that the rivalry wont be continuing in the near future, and I'm glad that I got to witness a lot of signature moments involving these two teams. Next year will definitely feel different without Texas A&M on the schedule.

But, as we move forward, we will still be Texas. That will never change. For better or worse (depending on who you ask), we will always be Texas. Regardless of the other teams on the schedule, Texas will remain a school that solely defines itself by its own successes and failures. A school whose identity, brand, and overall culture transcends any singular rivalry. A school whose pride in itself overshadows any resentment it feels towards anyone else. A school with its own identity. Which, in my opinion, is exactly how it should be.

Hook 'Em.

GTFO Countdown, T-24 Days: Texas Volleyball and the Unsurprising Surprise

txtwstr7 — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:03:35 -0000

I don't have anything against Texas A&M. I really don't. I have friends that went there, I have family that went there, and I have professional peers who went there. It's a good school. Now, I didn't want to go there (and I didn't want my sister to go there), but I won't begrudge anyone who decides to head to College Station. In my opinion, people should define success and happiness on their own terms.

So when it came time to put together a post for this series, I wanted to avoid writing about any topic that seemed unnecessarily inflammatory. More than anything, I wanted the facts to speak for themselves. So, with that in mind, I decided to research the Texas Volleyball program and their rivalry with Texas A&M. And let me tell you, when it comes to Texas-Texas A&M and volleyball, the facts could not be any clearer.

More, after the jump...

Full disclosure, I'm not a very knowledgeable fan over Texas Volleyball. Now, I've yelled "Point, Texas" in Gregory Gym more than once, but I would consider myself to be more of a "supporter" than a "fan." I highly encourage the BON Community to include some additional stories, anecdotes, and details of dominance in the comments below.

When I started looking into the volleyball rivalry, I fully expected to see that Texas had historically dominated Texas A&M. To verify this fact, I went to Texassports.com, pulled up the game recap for the last match against Texas A&M (which we won), and found the following facts:

The win improved Texas' all-time record against the Aggies to 70-23 and 23-13 in College Station.

The Horns' senior class ended its career with an 8-1 record against Texas A&M

In jotting down some notes over these stats, I basically nodded my head and thought "yeah, that sounds about right." This reaction caused me to set my pen down, think about it some more, and ultimately became the backbone of this story. I mean, think about it.

Could it really be that unsurprising that Texas had won 75% of its volleyball matches against Texas A&M? Could it really be that unsurprising that Texas had won nearly 64% of its matches against Texas A&M in College Station? And then, after bit more digging, could it really that unsurprising that Texas had gone 35-5 (a winning percentage of 87.5%) in its home matches against Texas A&M? Could it really be that unsurprising that Texas had gone 12-5 (a winning percentage of 70.5%) on neutral floors against Texas A&M? Well, yes it could. And that's what really struck me about this topic.

Essentially, the only thing surprising about our 75% historical dominance in volleyball was the fact that it remained so unsurprising. I fully expected to find that Texas had owned Texas A&M in volleyball and didnt even bat an eye when I saw the stats. For a "rivalry" series, that seems pretty remarkable. However, over the course of the rivalry, the stats are crystal clear. We beat them at home, we beat them on the road, and we beat them on neutral courts.

Now it's true that everything isn't necessarily that cut-and-dry. For example, after a victory in College Station in 1998, the Longhorns lost seven straight road matches against Texas A&M. Additionally, as pointed out by this article, Jerritt Elliott struggled against Texas A&M at the beginning of his tenure against Texas. I'm sure there are a series of other such stats that can be used to mitigate the disparity of the historical records.

However, as it comes time for Texas A&M to head to the SEC, Texas has dominated the Aggies over the last 7 years. In fact, since 2005, Texas has gone 14-1 against Texas A&M. And, once again, is anyone really surprised by those numbers?

In conclusion: Point, Texas. For the game, set, and match.

Hook 'Em.

UT and the 2012 Sandhurst Competition

txtwstr7 — Sun, 27 May 2012 23:15:01 -0000

On the right sidebar of this blog, it says "Welcome to Burnt Orange Nation, a blog dedicated to University of Texas athletics." While this phrase is typically associated with articles over Texas Football, Basketball, and Baseball, it also encompasses the wide variety of students who represent the University of Texas in athletic competitions. With this in mind (and in the spirit of Memorial Day), I wanted to branch out and write an article over the recent accomplishments of a particular group of students.

Even though it didn't get a lot of publicity, a group of UT Army ROTC cadets recently competed at the annual Sandhurst Military Skills Competition at West Point. Since the Sandhurst Competition started in 1967, this was the first time the UT Army ROTC Program has received an invitation. In fact, to earn this invitation, the UT cadets had to be selected as the top ROTC Competition Team across the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming. As soon as I received the good news, I made arrangements to be able to attend the competition as a spectator.

More, after the jump...

Before going any further, I want to highlight the extensive training the cadets received prior to the competition. As explained by the UT Army ROTC website:

The 11 carefully selected Longhorns have been enduring challenging training since the week prior to classes starting on January 17, 2012. Over the past three months they have conducted multiple mini-competitions, 5 strenuous PT sessions a week, and 2 extra labs per week. Not to mention, extra weekend training that consists of going to the range, Zodiac (rubber boat) training, land navigation, obstacle course, and rapelling. 56 teams from across the world will compete in the Sandhurst competition for the chance to prove their skills and leadership in a global aspect. Texas Army is honored to represent the University of Texas, 5th Apache Brigade, and Cadet Command at the United State Military Academy West Point, New York on 20-21 April 2012.

In regards to the actual competition, I could not have been prouder of the cadets. Throughout the competition, they maintained a positive attitude, gave every event their best effort, and demonstrated the exact type of tactical and technical proficiency required by their future profession. Additionally, they constantly worked together as a team, displayed critical thinking skills, and--most importantly--they served as outstanding stewards and ambassadors of the University of Texas. They didn't win, but their actions at the competition assured themselves that they couldn't lose.

To that extent, attending the Sandhurst Competition drove home the point of Baron Pierre de Couberti, who once said that "the most important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part; the essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well." I think that sometimes, especially in regards to amateur athletics, people can get overly wrapped up in the concept of wins and losses. In certain events (and definitely in regards to the Sandhurst Competition), the key is simply to follow the advice of Baron Pierre de Couberti and seek to "fight well." Which they did.

Conclusion

While I remain proud of my degrees from Texas, I'm more proud of the fact that someone from my family has graduated from UT in each of the past 5 decades. The steady stream of UT grads from my family tree serves as a constant reminder of the overall history of our University. It serves as a reminder of the litany of accomplishments from the University's past and present students. And, along those same lines, it reminds me of just how hard it is for a group of students to do something that has never been done before. Which, just last month, is exactly what happened. And it's exactly why I wanted to highlight the efforts of this special group of cadets.

Hook ‘em!

Pundit Roundup and Bobby Petrino

txtwstr7 — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 01:41:02 -0000

So, yeah, it's been awhile...

I honestly don't even remember the last Pundit Roundup column, but I'm pretty sure it involved covering the coverage of an ugly scandal. Unfortunately, this column will be more of the same.

The Bobby Petrino motorcycle crash-turned-scandal is clearly the biggest story of the Spring, and it could have significant ramifications for one of the purported National Title Contenders in 2012. However, in reading the coverage over this salacious story, I've noticed something interesting. In a story about a motorcycle crash involving Bobby Petrino, a "previous inappropriate relationship" involving Bobby Petrino, and a cover-up orchestrated by Bobby Petrino, a significant portion of the coverage has revolved around....Jeff Long, the Arkansas AD. Which is completely understandable. With the key facts of the scandal quickly crystallizing and eliminating some superfluous angles to the story, the nature of the coverage rapidly shifted to discussing whether or not Long should fire Petrino. But that's not the really interesting part.

To me, the most interesting portion of this story's coverage remains the fact that several pundits have avoided giving passionate arguments over whether Petrino should be sacked or saved. Instead, from my perspective, the most common narrative over this story has instead involved fleshing out the confluence of factors that will be a part of Jeff Long's final decision. More, after the jump.

Now, to be clear, several pundits have given concrete answers to the question over whether or not Bobby Petrino should be fired. Dennis Dodd and Thayer Evans both say yes. So does Gregg Doyel and (eventually) Clay Travis. To the contrary, Pete Fiutak says no.

In any case, my point with this column isn't to do a scoreboard of exactly how many people think Bobby Petrino should be fired. Instead, my main point is simply to highlight that many pundits have eschewed fervently taking one side or the other. By focusing their columns over the intricacies involved with Jeff Long's decision--without necessarily getting up on a Soapbox--these pundits are essentially letting their readers make up their own minds over what should happen to Bobby Petrino.

For example, Andy Staples starts off his column over this situation with three short words that pretty much gave me the idea for this Pundit Roundup.

Poor Jeff Long.

In his article, Staples does an excellent job fleshing out the circumstances of this case and makes it clear that "these are not normal circumstances." After walking through the facts of the case, the legality of firing Petrino, and the relationship between Petrino and Long, Staples gets back to the topic addressed by his first sentence. To wit, the column concludes with a few sentences outlining the enormity and complexity of the decision facing Long, who honestly sounds like he could go either way:

Long certainly sounded angry with his coach, but he didn't shut the door on him. "Certainly when someone isn't as forthcoming as they should have been, certainly it puts the relationship in a different place," Long said. "But, can we overcome that? That's something we've got to work through."

Will Long work through his issues with Petrino? Or will he answer Petrino's betrayal with a pink slip?
Petrino gave Long several reasons to fire him this week. But during the past two seasons, Petrino gave Long 21 reasons to keep him. Long will have to decide which criteria mean more.

While everyone should be sad about the departure of Matt Hinton from Dr. Saturday, Graham Watson is doing an admirable job trying to fill his shoes. In her own column over the situation, Watson says that Petrino "could be fired" and cites both the strength and weaknesses of using the Pitino precedent to analyze this situation. However, I thought the last paragraph of her article was particularly strong.

Petrino has put Arkansas in a terrible position here. He finally got the football team back on the national map and now he's dragging it through the mud.

Not to be outdone by the other pundits, Chris Low of ESPN.com wrote *two* separate articles over the upcoming decision facing Jeff Long. In the first article, which was aptly titled "No Easy Decisions for Arkansas' Long," Low systemically explains the long list questions and factors that Long will have to consider.

Now Long has one hellacious decision to make.

In short, can Petrino still be effective going forward as Arkansas' head football coach? Can he be trusted? Has he violated his contract and/or university policy to a point where he's no longer viable as a leader? Is this a stain on the university that won't easily go away as long as Petrino is still coaching the Hogs?

Honestly, if Petrino had gone 9-3 last season and 8-4 the year before, he'd probably already be gone.

But he didn't. He's a proven winner and has elevated Arkansas' program to a position of national prominence that the Hogs haven't enjoyed in 30 years.

Put yourself in Long's place.

Petrino came in and did exactly what Long hired him to do. He made Arkansas a national player in four years, taking the Hogs to their first BCS bowl in his third season and winning 11 games last season and finishing No. 5 in the final polls.

All the while, financial contributions have come pouring in at a dizzying rate, so much so that Arkansas is building a new $40.3 million football center that's scheduled to be completed by the summer of 2013.

In his second column over the topic, Low spends more time discussing the conduct of Petrino, but he also comes back to discussing the ultimate decision faced by Long without ever tipping his own hand.

Ultimately, what Long will have to decide is whether Petrino violated the terms of his contract, which has a clause in it that would allow Arkansas to fire Petrino for "engaging in conduct, as solely determined by the university, which is clearly contrary to the character and responsibilities of a person occupying the position of head football coach or which negatively or adversely affects the reputation of the (university's) athletics programs in any way."

In a column titled "Should Bobby Petrino Be Fired by Arkansas," SBN's Jason Kirk expresses his belief that Petrino should probably be fired by Jeff Long. However, after walking through some of Petrino's contract language, Kirk follows the lead of other pundits and analyzes the difficult situation facing Jeff Long.

The question is not whether Arkansas can fire Bobby Petrino, but whether he should be fired.

As SI.com's Andy Staples writes, Long's been given plenty of reasons to fire Petrino over the past week. But over the past two years, he's been given plenty of reasons to keep him around forever. Which matters more?

This decision comes down to three things. Do powerful Arkansas people care more about what Petrino did wrong or what he's done for the program? And can Petrino still recruit? The former might come down #TEAMFOOTBALL, and any SEC program can bring in talent, but the latter is hardest to answer.

For his part, the (freed) Bruce Feldman focuses on the spectacle of the story in pointing out how Long was stunned by the rapidity of the developments.

You have a successful coach, already with a dubious personal history ethically (don't think Atlanta Falcons fans or Louisville fans aren't loving this) of a hot program in the big-top world of the SEC, linked to an attractive blonde, who by the way, is engaged to another person in the Razorback athletic department. It has the capacity to keep the Twitterverse buzzing for weeks while Long tries to sort out exactly what happened with his $3 million coach.

At the press conference, you could see how blindsided Long was. He said he doesn't really know what he's looking for until he finds it.

In his article, Feldman also points out how Long's decision is complicated by Petrino's historical success on the gridiron, which, in conjunction with the questionable circumstances of Jessica Dorrell's hiring, helps make this entire ordeal "messy."

We've seen repeated instances of coaches getting themselves into awkward and embarrassing situations time and time again and yet, if the guy is a winner, people will give them another chance. Lots of folks have short memories. A lot shorter than those it seems of the media--and rival fans.

As I said before, this one's messy.

Interestingly enough, the non-Soapbox approach wasn't limited to the national media. Perhaps more than any other columnist, Seth Gunderson of the Fayetteville Flyer explicitly avoided giving his opinion over what should happen to Bobby Petrino. In fact, that was pretty much the entire point of his column:

Jeff Long has not been put in a good situation

So, what will it be?

Will Long suspend Petrino, dock him some pay and attach an extremely tight leash? All the while letting the university deal with the potential mess?

Or will Long take a strong stance by firing Petrino and say the University of Arkansas will not put up with this kind of behavior?

I'm just as eager as everyone else to know what's going on with our football program. But this is one time that I don't want to feel what Jeff Long is going through and the tough decisions he'll have to make.

Wear those shoes well, Mr. Long. I'm quite sure they won't fit me.

Gunderson isn't the only Arkansas fan who is torn over this story. Far from it. To that extent, an entire portion of the article written by Pete Thamel and Adam Himmelsbach spotlighted just how much the Arkansas fanbase is conflicted over Petrino's fate. In my opinion, the second quote is perhaps the most perfectly distilled analysis of the situation from an Arkansas fan.

"I couldn't imagine us getting a replacement that would be able to satisfy the Razorback nation like he has," Watkins said. "It would be a needle to the heart for sure. Everyone has so much hope in Bobby, so much faith."

Rhonda Carey, who wore Arkansas apparel as she watched a Razorbacks softball game Friday, said that if Petrino had struggled as a coach, "then this would be the chance to get rid of him - but he's been winning."

Conclusion

With the Petrino scandal essentially begging for a series of sanctimonious columns from the national media, I've been surprised by the measured approach taken by many pundits. While no one has excused the conduct of Bobby Petrino in this case--especially in relation to the failed cover-up--many pundits have avoided writing their own version of a soapbox column. Instead, these pundits have primarily sought to encapsulate the bigger picture, which relates to the wide-ranging factors that will influence Jeff Long's decision. In seeking this broader narrative, pundits have primarily laid out all the relevant facts and then allowed their readers to make up their own minds over what should happen.

For better or worse, this broader narrative won't last much longer. As soon as a decision over Petrino's future is made, the internet will quickly become ablaze with columns either praising or condemning the actions or inactions of Jeff Long and the Arkansas Athletic Department. All the grayness involved with the current rhetoric over this topic will quickly separate into the more popular black and white. That type of polemic discourse over this topic is simply inevitable, and it makes it all the more surprising that it hasn't already happened yet.

Hook 'em!

The Power of Polis

txtwstr7 — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 00:51:47 -0000

In the Fall of 2010, while I was still living in D-FW, I sought out the opportunity to volunteer at my alma mater. Reaching out to my former high school baseball coach, I asked him if I could conduct an 8-week Leadership Workshop for the team. The idea was to teach the players how to practically apply military leadership principles to their upcoming season. It was my belief--well, it *is* my belief--that leadership remains the most underappreciated and underutilized aspect of high school athletics. To that extent, while most teams give certain players the designation of being a "leader," that doesn't necessarily mean those players will be good leaders. In fact, one of my primary goals for the workshop was to help the players understand the nature of good leadership and recognize (and subsequently avoid) the traits of bad leadership. Because, as demonstrated time and time again, having a bad leader can be worse than having no leader at all.

The structure of the Leadership Workshop was simple. In addition to weekly lessons over leadership, the team also read segments of the book "Gates of Fire" by Stephen Pressfield. With the movie "300" being such a smash hit and cultural phenomenon, I thought "Gates of Fire" would provide a nice contrast towards exploring a different perspective of Leonidas and his leadership. As we went through the book, I tried to highlight various themes and perspectives over the Spartans, their culture, and their military success. As the workshop progressed, I found that one theme from the book resonated more clearly than anything else. It was the key concept that the team latched onto very quickly and was probably their biggest takeaway from the entire workshop. That theme, as I'll flesh out below, was the power of polis.

After the jump, I'll actually attempt to connect this thought to the Texas Longhorns. More specifically, I'll attempt to connect it to the 2013 Recruiting Class and Spring Football...

I imagine that most of you are probably confused over the phrase "the power of polis," and how it potentially applies to leadership. The most normal definition and understanding of the phrase "polis" is simply the ancient version of the Greek city-state. However, during the workshop, I gravitated towards an expanded definition of the term utilized by Stephen Pressfield within the book. When the story's narrator Xeones was bemoaning the destruction of his home Astakos, he said:

Our city no longer existed. Not alone the physical site, the citizens, the walls and farms. But the very spirit of our nation, the polis itself, that ideal of mind called Astakos that, yes, had been smaller than a deme of Athens or Corinth or Thebes, that, yes, had been poorer than Megara or Epidauros or Olympia, but that existed as a city nonetheless. Pressfield, Steven (2007-01-30). Gates of Fire (p. 19). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

In reading the book, that concept leapt out at me. The idea of viewing polis as not just the actual Greek city-state and citizens, but also as its overall "spirit" and "ideal of mind." In doing a bit of Googling last night, I found a few other similar references that also utilized this broader conceptualization of "polis." One article discussed this wider definition of polis in a few different sections:

Polis is generally defined as a city, a city state and also citizenship and body of citizens . . . However, polis is something more than that. Polis is in fact something that cannot be defined in single word or sentence . . . "the question of what the polis is has no simple and straightforward answer. In fact, it is implicit in this collection of essays that there is not nor can there be any satisfactory, all-inclusive definition of a polis."

Poleis were city-states established by the group of Greek people who proudly termed themselves "Hellene". They liked to distinguish themselves from other groups of people for they thought to have superior culture than others. For this reason, indeed poleis were not just place where Hellenes lived in but the pride and spirit of Greek people.

Another article went even further in explaining this broader understanding of the term:

Our word "politics" is derived from the Greek word polis. Sometimes this word is translated "city-state." But it means more than just "Los Angeles" or "New York City." The Polis was part of an ideology.

In teaching the lesson over "polis" during the workshop, I challenged the players to embrace the opportunity to revise the polis--or the overall "spirit"--of their program. I challenged them to try to reach out to the community, to the JV/Freshman teams, and even to the former players of the program. Furthermore, and most importantly, I wanted them to completely revitalize the overall core concept of what it meant to be a member of the program. If done properly, the effects of forming such a powerful identity can be almost limitless. As we discussed at the end of the book, there were several characters who chose to fight and die alongside the Spartans simply to feel like they were a part of something special. Of something great. Of something that represented an ideal far more important than any individual goals or desires.

This phenomenon was further explained on the eve of the final battle by a character named Suicide, who was a Scythian squire for one of the Spartan officers. Speaking to the other troops, he said:

For what can be more noble than to slay oneself? Not literally . . . But to extinguish the selfish self within, that part which looks only to its own preservation, to save its own skin. That, I saw, was the victory you Spartans had gained over yourselves. That was the glue. It was what you had learned and it made me stay, to learn it too. "When a warrior fights not for himself, but for his brothers, when his most passionately sought goal is neither glory nor his own life's preservation, but to spend his substance for them, his comrades, not to abandon them, not to prove unworthy of them, then his heart truly has achieved contempt for death, and with that he transcends himself and his actions touch the sublime." Pressfield, Steven (2007-01-30). Gates of Fire (p. 328). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

So, as I'm sure most of you are thinking...cool story, Hansel. But what this have to do with Texas? Well, maybe not a lot, but it's what I keep thinking about when I talk to others about the recent commitments to the 2013 Recruiting Class. While Texas has always snagged their fair share of early blue-chip recruits, I keep noticing a slightly different rhetorical tone from the most recent commits. And it's these minor differences that reiterate and solidify the idea that Texas has completely altered the core identity, the spirit, the ideology--the "polis"--of its football team.

To wit, a few years ago, Wescott wrote an entire recruiting article based around the idea that recruits were either "with us or against us." Like all articles from Wescott, this article was well-written, insightful, and nailed the current narrative surrounding the football team. It was also a great precursor to the "Texas Gang or Die" movement from last year. But, after following the past month of recruiting, I think this overall message has been slightly adjusted.

To me, the new message is "you're either with us or you're not with us." This nuanced distinction is a bit more powerful than it might first appear. Instead of an "us against the world" mentality, the new message appears to be more inclusive rather than exclusive. It's the idea that the current Texas program--and its polis--is truly special and anyone who goes somewhere else will be missing out on something great. The idea isn't that a recruit will necessarily become an enemy of Texas by going somewhere else, but that they will instead miss out on the opportunity of being here. So far, the confidence associated with this approach has been correlated with its execution. Instead of pressuring recruits to commit in his office, Mack Brown and the staff have been encouraging recruits to go home and think through their decisions. More specifically, they are essentially challenging the recruits to analyze whether or not they can think of another place where they would prefer to play college football. So far, for nearly all of these recruits who have gone home to think about their decisions, the answer has been a resounding "no."

However, while the last month of recruiting is what drove me to start thinking about the concept of polis, that's really only a starting point for discussing the larger tonal shifts that have taken root within the program. Even though the coaching purges after the 5-7 debacle were the beginning of these tonal shifts, the widespread changes didn't immediately take root with all the troops. Like most holistic shifts in philosophy, attitude, spirit, and/or ideology, the changes to the football program were initially met with some resistance. I mean, it's no secret that the team harbored some malcontents throughout last season. But, as we enter the Spring Football season, it appears that the team and coaches are truly embracing and exemplifying the new attitude, concepts, and spirit permeating throughout the program--in short, they are embracing the new polis. And, as Longhorn Scott taught all of us a few days ago, it's one thing to read about a new spirit or attitude, and it's something entirely different to see it.

In fact, the more I read about the recent practices and workouts, the more I think Wescott's phrase is actually applicable to the current players. For the players already on the Forty Acres, perhaps the most prevalent question heading into Spring Football remains "are you with us, or are you against us?" Because, on this current team, with this current attitude, with this current mindset, with this current polis, any player who decides to be a malcontent or a slacker will stick out like a sore thumb. Any such malcontent or slacker will have to answer to their strength coach, their position coach, their coordinator, their head coach, and a whole host of their teammates (Demarco Cobbs says hi!). Essentially, the changes that were taking root have taken root, and the new polis represents a clear abandonment from any vestiges of the previous complacency or stagnation. Iron will sharpen iron at every single level of the program, and anyone who isn't going to buy into the new mindset is going to have serious issues. Which, in all seriousness, is exactly how it should be.

Conclusion

I want to end this article by hearkening back to one of the previous quotes over polis. This quote explained that the separate groups of city-states were created partially due to the "pride and spirit" of the various groups. Basically, each of these groups thought they had a "superior culture than others."

I don't mean to say that the Texas coaches, players, or fans necessarily believe that the Longhorns have a superior culture to any of the other fine programs across the country. But I do think there is something within the nature of the program (and the University itself) that gives rise to a similar "pride and spirit." And this pride and spirit makes me think of the recent quote from Quan Cosby in the Texas Sports feature over Mack Brown being inducted into the Texas Sports Hall of Fame. In case you haven't seen it, Cosby said "I told [Mack Brown] after winning a National Championship and the success that we had, was that we did it the right way." And, above all else, that's what I truly think Texas fans value the most: doing things the right way.

I don't know if this team will win 10 games next year. No one does. There are too many unresolved questions surrounding certain key positions to feel confident about that type of prediction. But, while I don't know how many games we'll win next year, I feel confident and comfortable in saying that program has officially entered a new era with a new polis, in which things will be done the right way. And, for now, that's good enough for me.

Hook ‘em!

Celebrating Longhorn Road Trip and "The Streak"...

txtwstr7 — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:32:44 -0000

Most likely, if you're reading this website, you're a fan of the University of Texas. And, like most fans of the University of Texas, you've probably attended plenty of football games, a decent amount of basketball or baseball games, and perhaps even yelled "Point, Texas" at a volleyball match. For better or worse, that's just how things tend to work around the Forty Acres. Thankfully, in my time on campus, I was lucky enough to meet a bunch of fans who broke the mold of the typical "Texas Fan." I was also lucky enough to meet the fan who shattered it.

I don't remember exactly when I met Ryan Clark, but I absolutely remember the context. Even though he was just getting started, he was already "the Road Trip guy." The guy who attended an entire season of Texas basketball games. And then he was the guy who did it again. And again. And again. And...again. And, unless something goes terribly wrong in the next six weeks, he's going to do it yet again.

In case all the "agains" got confusing, Ryan is currently in the midst of completing his *sixth* straight season of attending every single UT Basketball game. The home game against Iowa State marked his 200th consecutive game and tomorrow night at the Lloyd Noble Center will mark game #212. The mind boggles.

After the jump, I want to provide some further context for Ryan's accomplishment, plug his outstanding website, and try to explain how his story is truly about more than just the streak.

Anytime a streak is celebrated in an article, it's a basic requirement to use bullet points to encapsulate its length. So here we go:

When Ryan's streak started at the 2006 Big XII Tournament Championship Game, the Texas Longhorns lineup consisted of Daniel Gibson/PJ Tucker/Kenton Paulino/Brad Buckman/LaMarcus Aldridge. Kansas countered with Russell Robinson/Mario Chalmers/Sasha Kaun/Brandon Rush/Julian Wright. Kansas won. : (
When his streak started, the top three movies at the box office were "Failure to Launch", "The Hills Have Eyes", and "The Shaggy Dog." The top single was "You're Beautiful" by James Blount.
When his streak started, Colt McCoy had not thrown a single collegiate pass. Jordan Shipley hadn't caught one, either. In fact, when the streak started, the Texas Football team was in the midst of a 20-game winning streak.
When his streak started, Jaylen Bond was 12 years old.
When his streak started, Tyrone Swoopes was 10 years old.
When his streak started, the Texas Rangers were managed by Buck Showalter and were about to unveil a starting rotation of Kevin Millwood/Vicente Padilla/Kameron Loe/RA Dickey/John Koronka.

The list could go on and on. However, the point I really want to highlight is the larger context of the streak, which is the series of EPIC FAILS from Texas that caused other fans to quit following the team altogether. Even back in 2009, when I wrote our Greensboro trip recap, I remember being struck by his answer over his most memorable drive home:

The most poignant moment of the entire trip came when I asked Ryan about the best feeling he's ever had during a drive home. In case you still dont know, he's been to 115 consecutive UT games. In many of his longest trips, we've been beaten, including every single one of his trips to the NCAA tournament, Big XII Tournament, College Station, Lawrence, and Columbia. And we wont even bring up the massacre in MSG or the collapse in Knoxville from a few years ago. He's suffered a lot of high-profile losses, but I wanted to ask about his highest point heading home from a road trip.

I immediately asked if it was after the Paulino shot, but he reminded me that we wound up losing to LSU before he drove home. After thinking, probably about all the crushing tournament losses, he said it had to be when we knocked off UCLA at Pauley Pavillion. I thought this was a satisfying answer, but then he added more.

He said, "You know, the more I think about it, the best feeling I've ever had might have been driving home from the Triple-OT loss in Stillwater. The night when Durant took on Boggan. We lost, but the entire drive home I kept thinking, 'that was some (freaking) amazing basketball."'

And that's where it both starts and stops for any recent fan of Texas basketball. We still haven't won a Big XII Tournament, much less an NCAA Title. Our 2003 trip to the Final Four has been immortalized by a commercial reminding the world that we had "no answer for Carmelo Anthony." With a team that has had so much success, all of the success feels a little hollow with all the high-profile disappointments.

That last segment gets me every time. And yet, since writing that piece, Texas has experienced additional collapses and losses that created even fresher scars. The scar of falling from Number 1 to an 8-seed. The scar of watching Ishmael Smith's jumper ripple through the net. The scar of losing a 1-seed due to road losses against Nebraska and Colorado. The scar of watching 4.3 seconds magically turning into 5.0. The scar of watching everyone else's underclassmen return to school, while ours left for the NBA Draft. The scar of watching the fan base start losing interest.

If there was ever a time to gracefully end the Longhorn Road Trip streak, the loss to Arizona last year would have been a fitting conclusion. I don't think many people expected Ryan's streak to continue through this season. But that's the thing...at this point, the streak really isn't even about the streak.

Put another way, I think my favorite part about Ryan--and his streak--is that it's never really been about him. It's about the basketball. If you read his articles on Longhorn Road Trip, he largely avoids making himself part of the story. Ryan goes to games, he watches the games, and then he writes about the team. That's it. To that extent, I think his streak tends to overshadow the fact that he's a fantastic writer. In fact, I've always thought his writing talent was bigger than the streak itself. If you aren't reading his website...well, you should be.

Conclusion

When I started writing this article, I had three simple goals: reference the LRT streak hitting 200 games, plug the website, and highlight the fact that Ryan is a great writer. Bing, bang, boom. That was supposed to be it. In all honesty, that probably should be it.

However, in writing this piece, I've somehow stumbled toward a fourth goal that I cant really explain. Somehow, someway, I want the UT fan base to truly appreciate the uniqueness of Ryan's streak. It's one thing to realize that something was difficult or challenging. It's another thing to realize that it will never happen again.

In conclusion, I don't know when the Longhorn Road Trip streak will end. I don't know if Ryan himself knows when it will end. But, when it does end, I just hope that Ryan will continue writing about the Texas Longhorns and College Basketball. Few (if any) do it better.

Hook 'em!

Army/Navy 2011: Honoring "A Game of Honor"

txtwstr7 — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 05:04:23 -0000

When crossing off an item from a personal "Sports Bucket List," it should be a meaningful experience. It should be a unique experience. It should be an experience that generates chills lasting well beyond the final whistle. In sum, it should be an experience that justifies its status as something that simply had to be attended during one's lifetime. Yesterday, in attending the 112th annual Army/Navy game, I got all of that and more.

It's possible my feelings over the game were affected by outside factors. The decade of dominance from the Texas Longhorns is officially over. The Realignment Chronicles have eradicated countless rivalry games. The BCS just unveiled an indefensible MNC game. Ohio State was "punished" for Jim Tressel's (in)actions by hiring Urban Meyer. A seemingly never-ending series of scandals continues to plague program after program. Any last vestiges of amateurism in big-money programs perpetually seem to be hanging by a thread. I could list a dozen more examples off the top of my head. As I've written before, there is no shortage of negative stories surrounding CFB.

It's also possible that my feelings were affected by internal factors. Back in 2007, I wrote my Undergraduate Thesis over the modern-day challenges facing Junior Officers. That same year, I pinned on the gold bar of a Second Lieutenant. The Army Combat Uniform the Army cadets will wear upon their graduation is the same uniform that I wear to work every single day. This connection made me feel closer to each of the Army cadets than any connection I've ever felt with a UT Athlete.

For whatever reason, the Army/Navy game affected me. It moved me. It made me feel sorry for all the fans who denigrate the rivalry as "meaningless" due to the mediocrity of the teams. As I'll explain below, it is my own personal opinion that this statement could not be further from the truth.

In my opinion, the most interesting dynamic of the Army/Navy game is that the players are not honored for what they are--they are honored for what they will become upon their graduation. Before going any further, I'd like to attempt to properly contextualize this transformation. Within my Senior Thesis, I wrote the following passages in honor of my ROTC classmates and other commissioning officers:

The tendency of wars being discussed in generalities, themes, or progressions glosses over the responsibilities and plight of individual positions. Fifty years ago, Lieutenants led Soldiers into battle; fifty years from now, they will do the same. The differences exist within the world itself. By highlighting the real-life challenges facing Junior Officers throughout this paper, I hope to create a higher level of awareness regarding the human aspects of warfare. In my opinion, the real nature of warfare tends to reside within human relationships: between Soldiers, their families, and foreign populations. In a few short months, many current college students will become these Soldiers and incur these relationships, with a single bar of gold signifying their ascendance into command.

In conclusion, while the sacrifices and difficulties of Junior Officers within this paper may appear almost superhuman, my final point revolves around the fact that both of these are made every single day by actual Americans. Seamlessly blending into the normal hustle and bustle of the Forty Acres, I remain astounded by the future transformations awaiting my classmates and other commissionees. Their courage and willingness to serve remains a constant source of inspiration, as well as being the backbone of this essay.

The acknowledgment of the future transformations for each of the players on the field serves as the catalyst for the mutual respect between the fanbases. This respect was apparent before even walking in the stadium. There is definitely some good-natured ribbing (more on this later), but watching the fans interact was a jarring contrast to the other rivalry games that I've attended. In fact, the knowing nods of respect exchanged between all the fans at yesterday's game really hammered home the silliness of the incidents from other rivalry games. The idea of an Army fan being beaten or abused for wearing a "Go Army, Beat Navy" shirt is simply inconceivable. The Army/Navy rivalry is real, but it involves something far bigger than state or institutional pride. It involves the constant acknowledgment of the past, present, and future sacrifices of every single graduate.

As everyone knows, these sacrifices of the players extend to any professional aspirations. Following the case of Caleb Campbell, every single player for Army and Navy must temporarily eschew any dreams of playing professional football. Regardless of one's personal feelings over what happened to Caleb Campbell, the fallout from the incident gives yet another level of meaning to the game. Based on the circumstances, the players on the field are perhaps the purest amateur athletes in all of college football, as they have already incurred an service obligation following their graduation. Essentially, the game feels more meaningful because it lacks any meaning outside of its own limited context.

To this extent, in attending the game, I received the biggest sports related chill of my entire life. And, interestingly enough, this chill had absolutely nothing to do with sports. During the game, a tribute video reminded the fans that some of the graduates of each academy had lost their lives defending our country since 9-11. As the pictures of these fallen heroes flashed across the Jumbotron, the entire stadium went into complete silence. My companion at the game--half of the 40AS writing duo--aptly summarized the effect of the tribute video by saying "Whoa. That kinda puts everything into perspective."

And, in the end, that's what the Army/Navy game is all about: putting everything into perspective. I couldn't help but feel a swelling sense of pride at seeing the Navy UnderArmour design, which contained a "Don't Tread on Me" flag across the front. Seeing the Army uniforms--with the combat patches, American flags, and tan cleats--caused a similar effect. But not everything about the game was overtly serious. As mentioned above, the good-natured ribbing between the services generated plenty of chuckles between the fanbases. This ribbing was primarily accomplished via pre-recorded commercials on the Jumbotron. This was one of the commercials:

USNA Spirit Spot: SPCA 2011 (24th Company) (via avetere71092)

As for the game, it was a good one. The teams fought hard, and Army had a chance to win the game in the final minutes. But, unlike perhaps any rivalry in the country, the game's outcome is tertiary to what the game itself represents. In fact, the title of the recent Showtime documentary is just about perfect--more than anything, the Army/Navy game is "A Game of Honor." And, as someone who has been beaten down by all the scandals and shenanigans surrounding the past two seasons of college football, the game was a much-needed breath of fresh air.

When looking back on this season, most fans will probably think of the outcome of the LSU/Alabama rematch. But I wont. Instead, I'll think about attending the Army/Navy game and how it represented everything that I love about college football. While it wasn't a National Championship game, a World Series game, or even a Conference Championship game, it didnt have to be. By focusing on what the game lacks, one can easily lose sight of what the game represents. It represents "A Game of Honor," and it was truly an honor to be there.

Pundit Roundup and Penn State

txtwstr7 — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:51:44 -0000

Sometimes, words simply feel inadequate. For me, this is one of those times.

Trying to set the stage for an extended analysis of the media's initial coverage of the Penn State tragedy feels like an exercise in futility. I know what allegedly happened. You know what allegedly happened. And simply knowing about these allegations casts a gigantic pall over everything associated with this entire issue.

Nevertheless, after the jump, and with a heavy heart, Pundit Roundup covers the coverage of this tragedy.

This entire week, I've been thinking about the Penn State tragedy. So have a lot of other people. It's clearly the biggest story of the season, and, after the events of Wednesday night and the updates on Thursday afternoon, it's only going to keep getting bigger. For all practical purposes, the media is just getting warmed up. Countless rallies, protests, and press conferences have yet to be attended. Several leaders have yet to be fired. And, of course, a high-profile home-game against Nebraska has yet to be played. There is no shortage of remaining angles towards covering this story.

And let's be clear about what that means. It means that before all is said and done, this story will be covered beyond the capacity of public consumption. The media will pick it apart to the bone. Then, inevitably, people will get sick and tired of hearing the story discussed from every possible angle. In fact, from what I can gather in certain forums, this process of over-saturation has already started. Which is why I think it is imperative to immediately discuss what happened over the first 96 hours of media coverage. More specifically, I want to talk about the dramatic effect of the streamlined narrative during the initial coverage of this story.

In previous Pundit Roundup columns, I've complained about the disjointed media coverage of certain stories. Essentially, I get very frustrated when micro-level considerations override and usurp the necessary macro-level analyses of specific issues. This was especially true during the Cam Newton circus of last season. However, during the initial coverage of the Penn State tragedy, that simply wasn't the case. In fact, I want to spotlight how the media drilled down on a very specific set of points during the first few days of coverage.

In my opinion, the coverage of this story really kicked into gear after Dan Wetzel published his initial column on Saturday. Its current effect is dulled now that everyone knows about the allegations, but, at the time, it was a complete and utter bombshell. It put my entire stomach in knots, and I could barely force myself to read past the first paragraph. Upon finishing the column, I had the following text message exchange with a friend.

(xxx): Penn State better be cleaning house. This is terrible.

(xxx): Wait, what happened?

(xxx): Go read what Wetzel just posted.

5 minutes later...

(xxx): Whoa.

After Wetzel's article was posted on Saturday, college football writers from across the country chimed in with their own perspectives. And, to the credit of these writers, their stories largely avoiding discussing unnecessary or irrelevant perspectives. Initially, I saw very few articles talking about the effect the story would have on recruiting, the Rose Bowl, potential successors to Paterno, or any of the other ancillary issues associated with this story. Because, as many people noted, those issues simply weren't worth discussing while everyone was still trying to understand the gravity of what this all meant. As shown below, most pundits initially eschewed covering the "sports" angles to this story in favor of discussing three simple concepts: what happened, what should have happened, and who was responsible for the gaps in-between.

While this streamlined narrative was likely due to the gravity of the story, I don't think anyone can question its effect. As the articles over this story came pouring out of the most talented writers in the industry, it became crystal clear exactly how this situation was going to play out. Wetzel's article was the opening salvo, and then the ensuing fusillade brought down the house.

People are already pointing out that the coverage of this story is becoming too much about Joe Paterno and less about Jerry Sandusky and his victims. At the beginning of the coverage, this was not the case. Instead, when this story first came out, most writers squarely focused on the larger perspective and let the facts speak for themselves. Put another way, they let the story be the story. Here are some examples of the opening paragraphs for some of these columns.

Dan Wetzel

At approximately 9:30 p.m. on March 1, 2002, a Penn State graduate assistant entered what should have been an empty football locker room. He was surprised to hear the showers running and noises he thought sounded like sexual activity, according to a Pennsylvania grand jury "finding of fact" released Saturday.

When he looked in the shower he saw what he estimated to be a 10-year-old boy, hands pressed up against the wall, "being subjected to anal intercourse," by Jerry Sandusky, then 58 and Penn State's former defensive coordinator. The grad assistant said both the boy and the coach saw him before he fled to his office where, distraught and stunned, the grad assistant telephoned his father, who instructed his son to flee the building.

Spencer Hall

I don't really need outrage here. Facts should be enough for you. Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley and VP of Finance and Operations Gary Schultz have been accused of perjuring themselves in a grand jury investigation of sexual abuse involving Jerry Sandusky, former Penn State defensive coordinator. Sandusky allegedly abused a child within the walls of the Penn State football facility with a third party witness looking on in horror in the year 2002. This was one of eight cases listed in the grand jury finding issued by the State of Pennsylvania. At least one happened.

In response, Penn State did not call the police. They did other things, but they did not call the police. Joe Paterno did not call the police, and Tim Curley did not call the police, and Gary Schultz did not call the police. The graduate assistant who witnessed the act did not call the police. Penn State President Graham Spanier did not call the police. A reported child molester and rapist was living and working in their midst, and working in a program that brought him into contact with boys, and not one person called the police.

Matt Hinton

I'm going to try to tread lightly here, both as a moralizer and a messenger of unsavory facts. If you need the full scope of the State of Pennsylvania's case against longtime Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, it's readily available. You can read about his alleged crimes in graphic detail.

The charges speak for themselves: Sandusky, a former Penn State player and 32-year veteran of the Nittany Lion coaching staff from 1969-99, is accused of sexually abusing at least eight underage males over a span of more than a decade, some of them on Penn State's campus, all of them through a charitable program he helped found for at-risk youth. Moral outrage is a given.

Rick Reilly (yeah, I know)

This is not about Joe Paterno.

If these boys really were molested, groped and raped by a middle-aged ex-Penn State football coach, then whatever misjudgment Paterno made will be a single lit match compared to the bonfire these boys will walk in for years to come.

Many of them won't be able to trust. Won't be able to love. Won't be able to feel -- nor trust or love themselves.

Bruce Feldman

When? When should Joe Paterno have gone above his athletic director? That's the question the legal community and college football fans and media try to wrap their heads around in assessing the despicable allegations coming out of Happy Valley.

But for eight young adults, their question would have been far more urgent and desperate as Jerry Sandusky allegedly robbed them of their innocence, one by one: When is somebody going to put an end to this?

Perhaps the best opening to an article came from SBN's Andrew Sharp

Untold numbers of children were (allegedly) victimized in the most vile way possible, and knowing adults (allegedly) looked the other way. What's come to light at Penn State this week isn't a sports story, really. So using it to shine a light on the NCAA's blinding hypocrisy seems beside the point.

With this opening, Sharp touches on something important, which is that this remains a sports story that should not necessarily be treated like a sports story by the media. In his article, Sharp concluded that "in the end, this is a human tragedy we're talking about. There is no morality play when everyone's morality failed. College sports has problems, but this is a whole different scale."

Other writers expressed similar sentiments. In his initial article, Wetzel said the grand jury report "could be the ugliest scandal in the history of college athletics" and that "this is a scandal that goes beyond nearly anything college athletics has ever witnessed. These are the most horrific charges that can be made, the worst of the worst kind of crime that haunts victims forever." In the article linked above, Bruce Feldman concluded that "what is alleged to have happened in Happy Valley is potentially much more damning and disgraceful than any story we've seen linked to college football in decades." Andy Staples even invoked a higher power by saying "there is no defense. There is no rational explanation. I hope, if placed in the same situation, I would protect the child. If I didn't, may God have mercy on my soul." Indeed.

Conclusion: My goal for this column was fairly simple. I wanted to encapsulate quotes from the initial coverage of the story before everything spiraled out of control. Which, unfortunately, has already happened. Even as early as Wednesday afternoon, the talking heads were already discussing each of the ancillary issues that were previously buried. I suppose the fracturing of the narrative was inevitable, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

By and large, I thought the media coverage at the beginning of this story was pretty admirable. Some of the segments from the columns highlighted above still get me choked up. They serve as a reminder of the exact stakes involved with this story, which are pretty much as high as you can possibly get. And if the Pundit Roundup crew is going to rip on the media for getting the little things wrong, I think we need to similarly point out when they get the big things right. Which, in my opinion, is exactly what happened during the initial coverage of this case.

Pundit Roundup: False Equilibrium and the "Culture of Equality"

txtwstr7 — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:06:17 -0000

And, with that potentially confusing headline, Pundit Roundup is back! Y'all musta forgot! Not that I would blame any readers who forgot about Pundit Roundup. While the PR Crew had the intention of posting more columns this year, it just hasn't worked out that way. But, when we started discussing the ideas for the first PR column of the season, the choice became crystal clear. The budding narrative of Texas as the "evil empire" within college sports has been fascinating, and it deserves more discussion than the typical "haters gonna hate" or "don't hate me cuz you aint me" response. In other words, it deserves a Pundit Roundup.

This "evil empire" narrative has been building since the start of the Realignment Chronicles, exploded with the launch of the LHN, and continued simmering during the defection of Texas A&M to the SEC and the near-disintegration of the Big 12. Additionally, this narrative became a bit more pointed as pundits fleshed out the full ramifications of Larry Scott's recent proclamation over the importance of the "culture of equality" within the PAC-12. It didn't take a rocket scientist (or even David Boren) to realize these comments were intertwined with the issue of the LHN and third-tier media rights.

In reading most of the columns written about this topic, it is truly striking to see how pundits have latched onto simplistic views of equal versus unequal splits of TV rights. Equal is good. Unequal is bad. Equal creates stability. Unequal creates instability. Equal is fair and just and right. Unequal is...Texas.

After the jump, the PR Crew invites you to join us for a discussion of Texas, the LHN, third-tier media rights, and the false equilibrium within the celebrated "culture of equality" of other conferences.

Before going any further, Pundit Roundup wants to acknowledge the excellent primers already written over the history of Texas, the LHN, and Realignment. In the off-chance you haven't read these articles, they are essentially required reading over the topics.

http://longhornnetworkanddelusion.tumblr.com/

http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2011/09/22/realignmentality/#more-33693

This column seeks to take a slightly different path. As always, the goal for Pundit Roundup is to cover the coverage of topical issues. And, when it comes to Texas and the LHN, the coverage is heavily slanted towards the inherent unfairness caused by the current arrangement within the Big 12. In a heavily linked SI article from this week, Paul Finebaum went as far as to declare "short of SMU in the ‘80s and the University of Miami since, has anyone done more recently to diminish the integrity of the game than the self-indulgent people who run Texas?" Naturally, Finebaum was also able to work in an Alabama reference, which was almost immediately followed by a line declaring that the Alamo was "still going down as an ‘L'" for Texans.

While that's just Finebaum being Finebaum, there are plenty of other examples. Matt Hayes used a terrible metaphor in an article that told readers to "watch Texas make millions upon millions with its Longhorn Network, and eventually suck the very life out of the league." Matt Norlander explained that "Texas has so many qualities that any conference should want. But it's got that baggage, too, in the form of the Longhorn Network -- an idea once thought revolutionary but now is an albatross." John Hoover wrote an article that began by stating that "equal revenue sharing among college football conferences certainly works" and then said:

Just ask the Big Ten Conference or the Southeastern Conference, who split revenue equally among their respective member institutions and are America's richest collegiate affiliations.

Better yet, ask the Pacific-12, which expanded last year with the intent of leveling out lopsided revenue distribution and soon will own the most lucrative college sports contract in history.

Or better still, ask the Big 12 or the Big East, whose inequitable revenue sharing policies have helped lead them to the brink of demise.

However, the article that seems to represent the overriding consensus over the issue was written by Kevin Sherrington. While not fully castigating Texas for its decision to create the Longhorn Network, Sherrington summarizes the situation as follows:

But unless you want to go it alone as an independent - something Texas isn't willing to do at this time - you've got to work and play well with others.

The problem is that the more power and riches Texas acquires, the more it wants. The LHN is Exhibit No. 1. No matter what your take on it, you can't be oblivious to the fact that it's viewed by so many as an unfair advantage. Which it is, in its current state. When Dodds said, "Anybody can do one," he was being disingenuous. Not for $300 million, they couldn't. Texas has the program, the history, the alumni base and the TV markets. Only a handful of schools nationwide could match all four criteria.

And the other schools that can aren't members of a conference that would allow them to do so.

The reason I want to pinpoint the Sherrington article is that it seems to closely mirror the general reaction over the Longhorn Network. Similar to Sherrington's article, most people primarily argue that not every school in a conference will have the juice to get paid for such an individual school network. Therefore, this arrangement will inevitably lead to such financial iniquities that it will ruin the stability and goodwill within the conference. Ultimately, the best solution is to create a conference network or series of regional networks that will split all revenues equally.

To be honest, I find this argument a bit puzzling, and not in a "Texas is right and everyone else is wrong" type of way. I'm a bit perplexed by how far the argument is being taken, despite all the preexisting revenue gaps outside of TV rights. Until recently, I don't think I've read any articles explicitly stating that all TV revenue MUST be split equally for a conference to survive. One SBN blogger even adopted the "just kick Texas (and its network) out of the conference and it fixes everything" position. And it's not just the pundits, either. Over the last few weeks, Gary Pinkel and David Boren seemingly couldn't do a single interview without expressing their discontent over Texas and the Longhorn Network.

But does all the "all for one and one for all" bluster over TV revenue really hold up under a larger analysis? I've been poking around the fascinating "Business of College Sports" blog, and the data is startling. Even though she provides multiple disclaimers over the total accuracy of the numbers, Krista Dash has done an incredible job marshaling up all the data over the revenues within college football. Earlier this year, she posted a series of articles analyzing college football revenue from the 2009-2010 season. Above all else, her website shatters any conception of a "culture of equality" within any specific conference. Just look at her breakdown of 2009-2010 football revenue within the schools of the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, PAC-10, and the Big 12. Seriously, even with all her caveats over their accuracy, please look at those numbers.

In the SEC, Georgia's football profits exceeded the football profits of Ole Miss by $36 million. The gap with Mississippi State and Vanderbilt was around $50 million. Equality!
In the Big Ten, Penn State's football profits exceeded the football profits of Illinois by $36 million. The gap with Northwestern and Purdue was around $44 million. Equality!
In the PAC-10, the football profits were shockingly low, but Washington still managed to exceed the profits of Washington State and Stanford by over $10 million. Equality!
In the Big 12, the football profits of Texas dwarfed everyone else. Based on the available data, Texas pulled in over $30 million more than Oklahoma. In fact, they pulled in over $60 million more than the bottom quartet of the conference. Inequality!

But these numbers only scratch the surface of the financial data. In perhaps her most fascinating post, Dash looks through the discrepancies related to booster revenue and conference payouts for schools that finished in the Top-25 of the BCS rankings. The discrepancies in booster revenue are staggering, especially for schools who all finished that highly ranked. To wit:

Oregon's booster revenue exceeded Utah's by $68 million. Equality!
LSU's booster revenue exceeded Arkansas' by $25 million. Equality!
Ohio State's booster revenue exceeded Nebraska's by $20 million. Equality!
Oklahoma State's booster revenue exceeded Missouri's by $38 million. Inequality!

So, with all this in mind, let me ask the primary questions that seem to be ignored by all the pundits discussing this issue. Why does the $15 million/year from the LHN--an amount which is actually lower b/c of IMG's cut--create such a firestorm of controversy when Texas has even larger revenue gaps over other schools relating to merchandise sales, ticket sales, alumni donations, advertising, etc? Put another way, if Texas split the $15 million equally among all the schools in the Big 12, how would an extra $1.5 million in the pockets of Baylor/KSU/Iowa State suddenly make everyone equal? Along those same lines, how can columnists routinely use the phrase "culture of equality" to discuss certain conferences when every single major conference (including the ACC) has eight figure discrepancies in football profits between their schools.

I've read many commenters state that the problems with the LHN were never about money. The problems relate to exposure and branding. But if that's the case, then I don't understand the argument against the LHN, since any school in the Big 12 could also launch their own network. Clearly (and I mean clearly), these networks won't be as profitable as the LHN, but they can all contain similar content. Additionally, no other school seemed to have an issue with the exposure and branding associated with the network before the financial terms were announced. This was the exact same sentiment expressed by DeLoss Dodds in the excellent Andy Staples article from last month.

The deal with ESPN to run the Longhorn Network wasn't completed until Christmas Eve. That, Dodds believes, is when other schools grew fearful of the network. "The only surprise in this whole thing was the amount of money and that ESPN did it," Dodds said. "Prior to that, it was not an issue with anybody. Once that happened, it became an issue with a lot of different people. Not everybody, but a lot of people don't feel good about it for us."

Conclusion

From my perspective, any reference towards a "culture of equality" within a conference is largely symbolic. No matter how many times Larry Scott repeats his mantra over equality--or how often it gets repeated by the media--sharing TV revenue in the PAC-12 won't give Utah a share of Phil Knight's money. It won't give them a share of USC's ticket sales. It won't give them a share of UCLA's basketball revenue. But it does give them equal footing on all TV revenue, at the expense of eliminating their ability to create their own network. Equality!

Similarly, even if the Big 12 equally shared all tiers of TV revenue, it won't give Iowa State any of the money donated by T. Boone Pickens. It won't give them a share of OU's ticket sales. It won't give them a share of KU's basketball revenue. But it does allow them the opportunity to expand their branding and exposure via their own school network, at the expense of not being subsidized by the more profitable schools in the conference. Inequality!

In conclusion, writing this column has reminded me of the famous phrase coined by George Orwell in Animal Farm. When it comes to certain conferences, all schools are equal, but some schools are more equal than others.

BYU Game as "Texts from Last Night"

txtwstr7 — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 03:07:08 -0000

As a young attorney, I'm still pretty new to the professional workforce. In fact, I've only been at my office for a couple of months. Until this past week, I've never experienced the scenario in which one of my coworkers went to a school that was playing Texas in football. Like everyone else, I've dealt with football games against the schools of my friends, law school classmates, and even some of my relatives. But this was different. This felt more formal. Something had to be done. And, after a brief conversation, something *was* done. We made a bet. The loser would have to place a helmet of the winning team on their desk for a week. Everything seemed simple enough. But, as Lord Tennyson once said, "this [bet] ought to have been simple, but the lawyers have made it complicated."

As word of the bet got around, others wanted to get a piece of the action. Considering my position carefully, I decided to ask myself what 54b would do and then follow his lead. So, as the week went on, I bet bigger and bigger. Money was never involved, but something far more important was at stake...pride. With absolutely no real confidence that Texas was going to win the game--to me, it seemed like a real coin-flip--I wound up agreeing to bets that would be pretty obnoxious if we lost. But we didn't lose. We won. We won by a single, glorious point. Which is why one of my coworkers will be walking around the office tomorrow with a gigantic UT flag draped over his shoulders. Hey, as 54b says (or should say), it isn't a *real* bet until somebody is getting naked, getting drunk, or wearing a cape.

Anyways, after the jump, and in the spirit of textsfromlastnight.com, I wanted to share some of my text conversations during the game with the BON Community...as always, a few of these entries were contributed by other BON authors.

(xxx): Are we going to win?

(xxx): Maybe.

(xxx): Are you going to work on Monday if we dont?

(xxx): Maybe.

(xxx): What is the TV broadcast saying about the crowd?

(xxx): Not much. Talking about the heat mostly.

(xxx): We just learned BYU drank pickle juice and Texas ate gummi bears.

(xxx): ....

(xxx): Man, they just showed the lowlight package of the 2010 season. That was soul-crushing.

(xxx): Did they show clips from the ISU loss?

(xxx): They showed it all.

(xxx): Did you know that Bevo likes hay?

(xxx): I cant even imagine how much I'm going to hate that commercial in another two months.

(xxx): DBU is making us look pretty bad, so far.

(xxx): DBU?

(xxx): Sorry, my phone is stupid.

(xxx): Although...BYU does have two picks already.

(xxx): Ummm...do you think most Texas fans were taking BYU lightly this week?

(xxx): Absolutely not. In fact, most of my friends were openly predicting a loss.

(xxx): We're getting outplayed so far. Straight up.

(xxx): Should have drank pickle juice instead of eating those gummi bears

(xxx): Can you hear the booing?

(xxx): Yes. Tell those idiots around you to shut the (heck) up.

(xxx): This booing is (ridiculous).

(xxx): Yup. Tell those idiots around you to shut the (heck) up.

(xxx): Why are people booing?

(xxx): I dont know. Someone needs to tell those idiots around you to shut the (heck) up.

(xxx): Was the illegal substitution penalty for using Case McCoy instead of David Ash?

(xxx): 88 yards of offense in the first half tonight. Eighty-eight.

(xxx): We'll see how Harsin adjusts. Remember what LonghornScott says about him. Diagnosis and prescription.

(xxx): Malcolm Brown is so much better than Fozzy

(xxx): It's not even close.

(xxx): Sad part is the muppet is a senior.

(xxx): How much to get Mr. and Mrs. Shipley back in the bedroom?

(xxx): Jaxon and Jordan need to have lots of kids.

(xxx): For sure. In fact, Jaxon needs to go the Aaron Ross route and marry a sprinter.

(xxx): Wait...are we actually going to win this thing?

(xxx): The D is just KILLING them in the second half

(xxx): Yeah, our coordinators have been pretty awesome this half.

(xxx): Getting a tick too conservative here (Ed. Note: This was immediately followed by the Shipley pass to Ash)

(xxx): Haha. Never mind. Well played, Harsin. I shan't disparage you again.

(xxx): I love Ashlewhite.

(xxx): Do we call this the C-ash offense?

(xxx): Well, only if you're saying that the running game has been money...

(xxx): We're officially running the McAsh offense designed by Harsinwhite

(xxx): We're gonna win with it, too.

(xxx): Man, that was truly pulling victory from the jaws of defeat

(xxx): Or, stated another way, that was exactly the opposite of last year.

(xxx): BYU fans kick the nice out of Nebraska fans by a mile

(xxx): Ash has 36 yards rushing, 23 yards receiving, and....35 yards passing.

(xxx): And we needed every single one of them.

(xxx): So, who starts at QB in Week 3?

(xxx): McAsh.

(xxx): Texas Longhorns - 2013 National Champions

As always, feel free to contribute your own conversations below...

Hook 'Em!

Texas/Rice Game as "Texts from Last Night"

txtwstr7 — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:03:16 -0000

This past weekend, I convinced a group of military officers to meet up in Austin for the Texas-Rice game. One of them was a UT Alum, but the rest of the group all went elsewhere for undergrad and law school. It's one thing to share the city of Austin, UT, and DKR with other UT students or alumni. It's something else entirely to witness a group of outsiders experiencing the city, school, and stadium for the first time. I thoroughly cherished watching my friends soak in our traditions and history (and cheerleaders) before walking away from the game suitably impressed.

But my friends weren't the only ones who took in a new experience on Saturday night. All of us who saw the game--whether in person or on television--witnessed a bit of program history. As everyone knows, the Rice game marked the first real opportunity for the revamped coaching staff and heralded recruiting class to strut their stuff. The Rice game was also the first-ever football game televised on the Longhorn Network. And, over the course of the night, my friends had plenty to say about both the game and its network.

After the jump, and in the spirit of textsfromlastnight.com, I wanted to share some of my text conversations with the BON Community...as always, a few of these entries were contributed by other BON authors.

(xxx): You getting to watch the game today?

(xxx): Yup. I'm in Austin with some friends.

(xxx): Well, most of us still cant see the game. Do you have tickets or are you watching on LHN?

(xxx): We're going to the game. Took advantage of the $30 ticket offer.

(xxx): Nice. I'm still trying to find a place to watch the game.

(xxx): GAMEDAY!

(xxx): Word. You going to the game?

(xxx): Nope. And I cant even watch it right now because I have TWC. But, still, GAMEDAY!

(xxx): Is it just me, or are people discussing the LHN as much as the actual game?

(xxx): No, that's happening around my tailgate, too.

(xxx): And it's not all good, either.

(xxx): Especially if someone brings up the commercial about Bevo eating hay.

(xxx): Is this going to be an obnoxiously close game?

(xxx): Nah. Maybe for a half, though. Rice cant hang after that.

(xxx): They lack the athletes. And the SWAGGER.

(xxx): Watching people from APO fall down when the Texas flag snaps into place never gets old.

(xxx): Seriously, I think it's my favorite pregame ritual...

(xxx): The LHN logo looks like it belongs on a Wal-Mart t-shirt.

(xxx): Man, KD is in the house and no one recognized him. Someone near me got excited about Pittman, though.

(xxx): That's pitiful. KD is one of the five best players alive. Dex might be the 8th best player on the Heat.

(xxx): Cody Johnson did what Cody Johnson does.

(xxx): You need one yard, he gets you three. You need four yards, he gets you three.

(xxx): Don't forget about the touchdowns.

(xxx): I was just making a joke. Cody is definitely an asset to the roster.

(xxx): Seems pretty apparent that Harsin doesnt have complete trust in Gilbert.

(xxx): Or the OL.

(xxx): Whatever just happened with that Gorilla and the Hellraisers is the worst thing I've ever seen.

(xxx): Agreed. I feel bad for everyone involved.

(xxx): At least the Rice band is entertaining.

(xxx): MOB. For life.

(xxx): Man, I cant believe the relationship with A&M has frayed so bad, so quickly.

(xxx): Well, I was one of the fans cheering the jokes. Well played, MOB.

(xxx): So, yeah, why didnt Brown carry the ball in the first half?

(xxx): I...I dont know.

(xxx): Gideon being Gideon.

(xxx): Harsin making some adjustments. We're rolling right now.

(xxx): Love seeing so many players touch the football.

(xxx): Truly a breath of fresh air.

(xxx): Brown is so clearly the best RB. He makes 5 yards where everyone else is making two.

(xxx): He may not play much on passing downs yet, but I'm a fan.

(xxx): Big Shipley cant take his hands off his hot girlfriend.

(xxx): Which is yet another thing Lil Shipley can learn from his older brother.

(xxx): Big Shipley has good taste.

(xxx): You know, Gilbert wasnt too bad tonight. He wasnt *good*, but it could have been worse.

(xxx): Yeah, outside of the bizarre lateral play, he was serviceable.

(xxx): Yup.

(xxx): Wait, how did "serviceable" become good enough for a Texas QB?

(xxx): I missed the game. Anything I need to know?

(xxx): Not much. Nothing you probably dont know already. Fish were great.

(xxx): Cool. But are we gonna beat Baylor this year or what?

(xxx): LHN, Conference Realignment, Pay for Play, blahblahblah. I'm just glad football is back.

As always, feel free to contribute your own conversations below...

Hook 'Em!

A Conversation about "Pay for Play"

txtwstr7 — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 00:05:02 -0000

The latest Realignment craze wasn't the only major story for college athletics this week. After a season and off-season full of embarrassing events and scandals, the Lords of the NCAA recently convened at the Crossroads of America for a retreat. Many articles were written in anticipation of what is usually an anti-climatic occasion, but one in particular caught our attention. This one, from ESPN, outlines the winds of change that preceded the event. That article--written before the event itself--sparked a free-flowing discussion between myself and Reggieball over the "pay for play" issue.

As everyone knows, "pay for play" remains a major issue of focus for college athletics. In fact, the folks at ESPN have also been running a massive "pay for play" series this summer. Using the articles from that series as a starting point, we scrutinized various issues and viewpoints related to the "pay for play" debate over email. The result was a partly a Socratic dialog (where the characters ask each other questions and gradually refine their positions), and partly the third act of Too Good to be True, which is the George Bernard Shaw play that ends with the characters making speeches directed at no one in particular.

The full exchange is after the jump...

txtwstr7: I think the OTL piece sets the foundation for an interesting narrative, then fizzles out. And I think that's my most common reaction to these types of pieces--more sizzle than steak. I've read just about every article associated with ESPN's "Pay for Play" series. Some of the articles--especially the Kirk Cousins one--were interesting or informative. Some of them were not. Almost all of them feel incomplete.

To be honest, most of the "pay for play" articles remind me of the silly Realignment articles and Cam Newton articles from last year. Just how the popular "Texas should join the SEC because....footbaw!" argument ignores the additionally relevant factors of academics, politics, recruiting, corruption, and the LHN, any argument over "players should be paid a cut of jersey sales" generally ignores a whole host of potential domino effects associated with administering such a seemingly minor proposal. With each of these issues, you have to force yourself to analyze them from a macro level. There are just so many sub-issues related to each proposed change, and the sub-issues often get glossed over when championing one position over the other.

Reggieball: You are right in that there is a lot of interesting stuff in the pay for play debate, if you weed out all of the crap. I thought the OTL article had one really interesting quote:

"Since then, we've seen SEC commissioner Mike Slive propose to lift the value of an athletic scholarship to cover the cost of attendance (an extra $3,000 a year) and make them multi-year deals to better live up the idea of a "full ride." He also wants academic reforms that would sideline many top prospects -- a higher minimum entering core-course GPA (2.5 instead of 2.0), and freshman ineligibility for those who fall below that mark so they can focus on school."

There is a lot of angst about NCAA's role in creating minor league programs for the NBA and the NFL. In basketball, the "one and done" phenomenon has a lot of people upset. One way we could reduce this would be to require that all the athletes who play NCAA sports would belong in college even if they didn't play a revenue sport. Let's take the Kentucky basketball program as an example of what some might view a minor league team for the NBA. If we tighten up academic standards, Brandon Knight and John Wall are still going to play in the NCAA (these guys certainly belonged in college), but some other guys probably end up in the NBA D league. John Thompson totally disagrees with this, for what it is worth.

txtwstr7: The suggestions from Mike Slive deserve a bit more unpackaging. It's not as much as what some people want, but I'm definitely in favor of most of the minor proposals associated with slight adjustments to scholarship benefits, stricter enforcement of violations (both individual and systemic), and increased academic standards. I think permitting additional scholarship benefits eliminates the "we sell stuff because we need money" defense and could be used in conjunction with stricter enforcement. Overall, though, I'm extremely uncomfortable with a lot of the "pay for play" chatter, especially when the argument shifts towards allowing players to fully and completely market themselves.

Reggieball: Let me push you on that. Why is the whole idea of allowing NCAA athletes to go out and get endorsements off the table? In essence, I am going to make Michael Wilbon's argument, although I will be making it a little bit differently.

We know how much financial trouble universities are in, and how few athletic departments are actually financially self-sustaining. One of the practical problems with pay for play is that most universities don't actually make any money off of athletics. It is just another expense. I guess you can make the argument that this is because there are so many non-revenue sports weighing the system down, but only 68 of 120 FCS football programs generate positive cash flows. Roughly half of the FCS football programs are in the red. At many of the profitable programs, the profit is small. This money goes to help support the rest of the athletic department, which in many cases are highly subsidized by the universities.

So it is hard to justify allowing the universities to start paying players. In effect, this money will be coming out of tuition paid by students of the university.

But the free market offers a solution to this problem.

Why can't we let players go out and get endorsements? Kevin Durant or Vince Young certainly could have gotten them. The NCAA's rules restrict these guys for maximizing their earnings. Terrelle Pryor could have endorsed multiple businesses in Columbus. And we could even bring back the days of the Burnt Orange Cadillac. If the athletes get paid, they are more likely to stay longer in college. None of this comes out of the pockets of tuition paying students. It seems like everyone wins. I know this feels shocking to even consider. It just feels so... wrong. But why exactly? It isn't really immoral, it is only against the rules. If the rules were changed, there isn't anything inherently wrong about it.

I guess the worries relate to unintended consequences. One worries that there will be all of these sleazy guys hanging around the athletes. But to a certain extent, it is already happening. So in my scenario, the athletes will at least be getting a bit of scratch for putting up with the sleaze. So why can't this work? Oh yeah, it might come into conflict with some of the university deals and endorsements.

This reminds me of Greg Anthony. I don't know if you remember this incident, but during his college years Greg Anthony had a financial interest in a t-shirt company and tried to use his position on the team to promote the business. People considered UNLV in the late '80s and early '90s as the sleaziest program around. But if you look at this particular incident under a different light, Greg Anthony was just an entrepreneur. The NCAA's problem was that Anthony was trying to make some money on their turf, and they weren't getting to wet their beak.

The NCAA owns these kids. That is just the way that it works.

txtwstr7: I think you do a nice job building the framework for the endorsement deal argument. It's refreshing to see an argument that extends beyond saying "it's only fair" or repeating the word "exploitation" a bunch of times. However, I'm going to do my best to tear it apart. For me, the bottom line is that it would completely eradicate any vestiges--even in theory--of the NCAA being composed of amateur student athletes. And I'm not prepared to go that far.

You are correct in saying that the strongest counterargument is unintended consequences. But I'm not really concerned about whether players might sign deals that violate their university's pre-existing endorsements contracts. More importantly, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of schools using pre-arranged endorsement deals as a way of influencing recruits. Just think of how many endorsement deals that schools would line up for Johnathan Gray or Dorial Green-Beckham. And, if you want to say that schools couldn't be involved, think of the endorsement deals that boosters would put together for recruits, which would naturally be school-specific offers. In such a system, the entire recruiting process would become synonymous with endorsement offers. Put more simply, such a system would immediately become the legalized version of the alleged Cam Newton bidding process.

Reggieball: I definitely hear your concerns on possible "marketing synergies" between the universities and the players. Or having the boosters involved, and building a system where the top recruits going to the highest bidder. Let me propose a solution to this problem.

The NCAA could step in and regulate the endorsement system, and put limits on the amount of endorsement money players can accept. We can still cut certain players in on the deal without having to pay them out of university money that should probably go somewhere else. And with oversight, we can reign in some of the potential for excess.

Even if we don't have a cap on endorsements, I wonder how many recruits will truly inspire an all out bidding war? Honestly, how many recruits really have the kind of potential impact that people would bid for? There would probably be some bidding wars in the the first year or two, if we switched over to this system. But once it was in place for a few years, things would start to settle in. Over time, people will figure the system out and behave more efficiently.

txtwstr7: Well, maybe. But there's another issue with endorsement deals that bothers me, outside of the amount of endorsement money that schools could arrange for athletes. I'm also leery of the timing. I don't like the idea of star recruits signing endorsement contracts before they've passed a single class. As mentioned above, it basically disintegrates the concept of college athletes being both "amateurs" and "students." I know that most people already think that ship has sailed--and maybe it has--but I don't think that's a good enough reason to completely throw open the doors to free market ideals.

Reggieball: If keeping these guys as amateurs is a goal, then the endorsement plan obviously doesn't work. Additionally, you are right that it will be another blow to the concept of the student-athlete.

We have to ask ourselves why we don't think of these guys as student-athletes now. Of course, we have to be very careful of painting with a broad brush. There are plenty of big time college athletes who take their education seriously. Even in basketball, where nearly all of the best players have no intention of staying for the full four years of college, there are plenty of guys like D.J. Augustin, Emeka Okafor, and Brandon Knight who take their studies seriously. To borrow what Coach K once said in a TV interview about Okafor, these are guys that any school would want to have on campus, even if they didn't play a sport.

There are many guys who are not "real students" scattered throughout NCAA football and basketball. They are in college for one reason. They bring in dough for the university. If our rule change means these guys no longer are eligible to play, they will never see a university campus. Let's revisit one of John Thompson's old arguments against Proposition 42. Thompson argued that athletes who were marginal students could still benefit from being on a college campus. I am not sure if I agree with this position or not. Is that what a flagship university is really for? Might these kids instead be better served by starting out at a community college? Still, I respect Thompson's position, because there is an element of nobility in it.

Graduation rates for NCAA athletes as a whole is pretty good. But the universities have incentives to accept people they normally wouldn't if they can play football or basketball.

txtwstr7: I think I'll pick up right where you left off...let's talk about graduation rates.

With your endorsement proposal, you asked me to spotlight its potential problems. I'm going to ask you to do the same thing with another proposal. To me, the most intriguing idea towards solving the "pay for play" issue involves establishing trust funds or investment accounts on behalf of all football and basketball players who graduate. Carl Ehrlich previously published an article that fleshed out this idea. (ed. note: for some reason, if that link isn't working, the article should be at: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=ehrlich/110107)

Before you read his article--if you haven't already--I fully admit that Ehrlich's proposal is a bit clumsy. And, yes, the article has one of the worst titles in the history of sports-writing. But I don't want you to critique his specific proposal. Instead, I want you to analyze the idea that a modified version of his plan might be the only possible solution that simultaneously preserves the NCAA's mission and also properly compensates players for their financial contributions to the university. I think Ehrlich perfectly encapsulates my own thoughts with this quote:

These are issues worth resolving, despite how daunting the transition might seem. First, we need to figure out where we want to go. Then, we can figure out how to get there. A world in which players receive the money they've earned in the process of getting a diploma is a world worth working towards.

As I mentioned earlier, Ehrlich's proposal is a bit clumsy. But I truly think the idea is fascinating, largely because it could potentially resonate with both sides of the debate. Setting up a trust fund on behalf of all football and basketball players who graduate does nothing to destroy the concept of "amateur student athletes," but it also attempts to provide those players with an eventual share of the revenue they helped produce. As of now, I cannot think of a single other idea that even comes close to bridging this gap.

Even though I feel woefully unqualified, I'd like to put forth a brief overview of such a system. The amount of money that goes into each athlete's trust fund could involve a formula related to TV revenue, gate revenue, and grades. Each of these factors would seem to lead towards an equitable result. Under this proposal, players would receive a tiny fraction of the TV and gate revenue for their sport. This money would accrue in the trust fund, with the principal becoming accessible to the player upon their graduation from the university. Players would "lose" this money if they fail to graduate, get kicked off the team, lose their NCAA eligibility prior to graduation, or transfer.

Obviously, this proposal raises a lot of issues. It would lead to some dramatic disparities in the size of trust funds between schools. It would also put an increased financial strain on the universities who are already in the red. Either of these concerns could potentially be addressed by having the NCAA regulate or subsidize the amount in each trust fund. However, that still leaves open a whole host of issues related to valuation. Should every player on the team be entitled receive the same amount? What about players who redshirt? What if the program actually lost money during the year? There is no shortage of tough questions that would need to be answered for any such proposal to work.

However, like Ehrlich, I'm not currently fixated on specifics. I'm more concerned with examining whether this is the lone "big idea" that deserves a closer look. Because, if it's not, I think we're left with the two options that we've previously discussed, which are either administering a series of incremental improvements that will leave most fans unsatisfied or officially abandoning the concept of "amateur student athletes" and explicitly allowing players to be paid.

Reggieball: I think the trust fund idea is an admirable goal. It is hard to argue against the principle of the idea. That would be like arguing against puppies and sunshine.

Do you know what they say about Canada? It is a country that works in practice, but not in theory. This trust fund idea is sort of the opposite of Canada. The problem is the part where the schools have to come up with the money. That is really my only problem. If it has to come out of the athletic budget, I wouldn't feel right if schools had to cut a few minor programs to generate the cash for football and basketball players. And taking it out of the general university budget? Tuition is already growing at unsustainable rates. The states are strapped for cash, so university budgets are going to keep getting tighter, meaning schools will have to cut costs and raise tuition just to keep going.

In a distant future where there is enough money, I am all for the trust idea. But I think for now, we are probably stuck with incremental improvements.

txtwstr7: And, in trying to bring this discussion to a conclusion, I honestly think being stuck with such improvements might be enough for me. At least, for right now.

I might feel different if I didn't think there was enough wiggle room for the NCAA to stabilize the current system. But I honestly do. In fact, I think that Mark Emmert is on the right path. As a whole, I think the media has remained overly fixated on the "no pay for play" rhetoric and missed the potential for systemic improvements associated with the proposals that are currently on the table. This article hits all the high points.

To me, those proposals don't seem like empty or pointless changes. If the NCAA authorized four-year scholarships, Cost of Attendance adjustments, higher academic standards, and tougher penalties for clearly defined major violations, I think those are all common sense steps in the right direction. The article summarizes some of the changes as allowing conferences the option of awarding "bigger, longer scholarships to athletes," which would hopefully stem the tide of misconduct, especially if conjoined with much stricter penalties for major violations. That's not as far as I might go, but it's not a bad start. And it's a start that remains completely in line with the purported mission of the NCAA, which is "to govern competition...and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."

That's really where everything starts and stops with me--in the current environment, can we build a workable system that sustains that mission? If so, we have to try to preserve it.

But, we've already said enough. I'm interested to see what the BON community thinks about the "pay for play" issue. If, of course, any of our readers can be torn away from discussing the latest saga in the Realignment madness.

Hook ‘Em!

Further Analyzing CFB and the Narrative Problem

txtwstr7 — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:22:49 -0000

In learning about leadership, there's a certain theory that has stuck with me. This theory remains rooted in the concept that leaders must fully understand themselves, their character, and their ethical values. To that extent, leaders should be able to avoid hearing about a scenario and saying "Wow, I dont know what I would have done in that situation." Even though that seems like an innocuous statement, it has some powerful undertones. Because, when you give that response to a scenario, it can be argued that you dont really know--or even understand--yourself as a person. It can be argued that you don't know your personal character. That you don't know your ethical values. And that you certainly don't know yourself as a leader. Because, if you did, you know *exactly* what you would have done in that situation.

Whether or not you actually agree with that position (and many dont), I think it's a pretty powerful concept. And it's a concept that I thought about during the recent actions of Jim Tressel, Gene Smith, and Gordon Gee. While I'm not in their shoes, I feel very strongly about the fact that I wouldnt have done what they did. To this day, I'm still galled by the initial a circus of a press conference. If I was an Ohio State fan, this whole episode would cause me to feel sick to my stomach during the entire season. I dont know if I could even watch. In fleshing this out, this leadership concept also makes me think about Notre Dame, Oregon, Auburn, Iowa, John Junker, and the entire cast of characters involved in the negative stories from the past year.

Now, the point of this post isn't to take a moral highground. It isn't even to analyze these individual stories. Instead, my goal is to re-examine the narrative for CFB over the last year and how it has affected my feelings for the sport. This discussion started with a post in January and has further evolved over the last few months as new stories have emerged.

As explained in the previous post, it's pretty staggering how many "negative" stories for CFB have emerged over the past year. It's even more staggering how many of these "negative" stories have undercut the main selling point of college football, which is having amateur student-athletes playing football in exchange for a college scholarship. That's a powerful narrative, yet one that is constantly being undercut by current realities. It's also a narrative that doesn't leave itself open to much wiggle room. Hence, if a player is caught receiving improper benefits, then they--and potentially their school--are supposed to be punished.

For the purposes of this post, I think it is instructive to walk through the chain of events from the past year. In order to curtail the length of this post, I trimmed the summaries of the events covered in the previous post, and then added all the stories from the current off-season.

1) Conference Realignment (Summer 2010)

For the most part, the realignment saga was all about money. Which is fine. Money makes the world go round. However, the realignment saga arguably damaged the overall NCAA narrative, as it’s hard to sell "rivalry, history, and tradition" when it’s clear that schools will abandon their existing relationships for a certain price. I dont want to belabor this point, but, if you still dont understand why realignment wasnt necessarily helpful for college football, then please read Scipio Tex's epic realignment piece. In fact, just try to wrap your head around this one question from that article, which I still find to be largely unanswerable:

Explain to me exactly what this current move did for Longhorn fans? Fans. Me? You? Us? Not Longhorns, Inc.

2) USC Hammered by NCAA Sanctions (June 2010)

After a four-year investigation, the NCAA slapped the "lack of institutional control" label on USC and bombarded them with sanctions. This actually got the NCAA some good press, but it also caused the media to question the legitimacy of USC's 2004 National Title. About a month later, USC decided to send back their copy of Reggie Bush's Heisman trophy.

3) UNC Suspensions and Dismissals (July-September 2010)

On the verge of their marquee matchup with LSU, UNC suspended 13 players (and 6 starters) because of various allegations and infractions. Most notably, star player Marvin Austin was suspended and then later kicked off the team for accepting improper benefits. The story eventually led to John Blake resigning on September 6th.

4) Various NCAA Coaches With "Conference Call" Over Problems with Agents (August 2010)

After a series of off-season rumors and scandals, Nick Saban spearheaded a conference call over how to "protect" players from unscrupulous sports agents. The article explains how investigations over agents had recently been conducted at four different SEC schools. Out of twelve.

5) Alabama Player Marcel Dareus Suspended (September 2010)

One of the heroes from the National Championship game, Dareus' suspension was related to accepting improper benefits during two off-season trips to Miami.

6) AJ Green Jersey Suspension and Controversy (September 2010)

Interestingly, the AJ Green suspension dovetailed into a much larger discussion. After he was suspended for four games for selling a game jersey, several pundits declared the NCAA to be hypocritical. As Michael Wilbon noted, Georgia sold 17 different versions of Green's jersey to the general public.

7) Reggie Bush Returns the Heisman Trophy (September 2010)

Following the lead of USC, Reggie Bush also returned his Heisman trophy. Not exactly a shining moment for the NCAA. Please note that we're still in the month of September.

8) "Death to the BCS" Eviscerates the Current BCS System (October 2010)

The work of several Yahoo Sports authors, "Death to the BCS" declared itself to be "the definitive case against the Bowl Championship Series." This book produced some strong indictments against the already unpopular BCS system, and it was widely discussed all over the internet.

9) "30 for 30" Specials Highlighting Negative Aspects of NCAA/Recruiting (November/December 2010)

This fall, ESPN's "30 for 30" series included the stories of Marcus Dupree and the SMU Program receiving the "Death Penalty." If you are unfamiliar with either of these stories, here are Barking Carnival's excellent recaps of "The Best That Never Was" and "The Pony Excess".

10) Gordon Gee and "Little Sisters of the Poor" Comment (November 2010)

While his sentiments weren't entirely misguided, Gordon Gee's comment that the non-BCS schools played "The Little Sisters of the Poor" was heavily criticized. Additionally, as pointed out by Dan Wetzel, his comments actually served to spotlight some of the key problems with the BCS.

11) Cam Newton Story With Bombshell after Bombshell (November/December 2010)

Plain and simple, the Cam Newton story was *the* story of last season. But, as I pointed out in a Pundit Roundup column entirely dedicated to the Cam Newton coverage, the story was discussed in a variety of platforms. These ranged from whether he should win the Heisman to whether athletes should be paid in college. Regardless of how you felt about the case, it 's hard to argue that it projected a positive image of the NCAA system.

12) Lackluster BCS Matchups (December 2010)

With the exception of the Rose Bowl and National Championship Game, fans were lukewarm over the other BCS games. This lack of excitement is further demonstrated by the next item on this list.

13) Unranked UConn Cant Sell Fiesta Bowl tickets (December 2010)

In a further indictment of the current system, there were a flood of stories related to schools being unable to sell their allotment of tickets for bowl games. Most notably, UConn resorted to begging fans to buy Fiesta Bowl tickets. Not surprisingly, it didnt work. Later calculations placed their financial losses for the game at $1.66 million. Their actual losses were much higher, as OU routed them and then their coach fled for Maryland. Good times.

14) Ohio State Players *Not* Suspended for Sugar Bowl (December 2010)

A few weeks before the Sugar Bowl, several Ohio State players were found to have violated NCAA rules by selling various items. After the news broke, various parties succesfully lobbied for a postponed punishment. In discussing the issue, Dan Wetzel said Terrelle Pryor's acts "exposed the charade of college athletics." After reading his article, it's easy to understand why someone would have simply skipped the game. This is especially true if they didnt have cable, since the game--like all the other BCS games--was solely televised on ESPN.

But, as you know, that wasnt the end of Ohio State's issues from Tatgate. Stay tuned.

15) UT TV Deal and the ongoing hyper-monetization of college sports (January 2011)

BON analyzed the deal here. To me, the most interesting part of the coverage over the deal was the constant regurgitation of the $300 million figure. In talking about the network with fans of other schools, they dont really know exactly what the network will show. They dont really know what cable packages will offer the channel. But they damn sure know how much ESPN paid for it. And, for the NCAA, I'm still not sure that's a good thing.

16) Iowa workouts, rhabdomyolysis, and the school's response (January 2011)

Even though it comes under unfortunate circumstances, I want to give a shout-out to SBN Blog "Black Heart Gold Pants." They absolutely crushed the coverage of Rhabdogate. A few weeks ago, I actually read through most of the FOIA-acquired e-mails over how Iowa planned to deal with the situation. Some of them were truly mind-boggling over their "plan" for the press releases and press conferences. Honestly, who could have possibly thought that saying "we expect no further comment at this time" was a good idea?

In looking to see the response from BHGP, I found a series of well-written articles over the entire situation. See here, here, here, and here for their coverage. In particular, I thought this post's discussion of the changing world for SIDs due to social media was especially insightful.

17) SI/CBS News Investigation over "Crime Rates in College Football" (March 2011)

This extensively researched report provided several statistics over the criminal records of players in Top-25 programs. It also pointed out that only two of these programs conducted background checks on recruits. This article drew a lot of bad press, but, as Dr. Saturday pointed out, its results were largely skewed. In any case, this was another black eye for college football.

18) Larger coverage of "Oversigning" Problem (January - March 2011)

Oversigning is nothing new. It happens every year, especially in the SEC. But, for the first time that I can remember, the prospect of curbing these abuses finally made some traction. Supplementing the series of articles explaining the problem, the University of Florida President wrote his own SI editorial that called the practice morally reprehensible. And it is. I dont see how anyone could read this article and feel good about the process.

19) Suspicious Oregon payments to Lyles and Flenory (March 2011)

Recruitocosm was all over the problem of Street Agents in Texas. Their position was potentially vindicated by the recent Yahoo Sports report over the suspicious payments by Oregon to Will Lyles and Baron Flenory. After the news broke, Oregon announced that it opened its book and released the invoices from the transactions. You can read the articles and make up your own mind, but please wait to reach any conclusions until you read about Lyles and Patrick Peterson further below.

20) Jim Tressel e-mail cover-up and pitiful "self-sanctions" from Ohio State (March 2011)

With this one, I dont even really know where to begin. After the player suspensions associated with Tatgate, I think everyone--and especially Jim Tressel--assumed the issue was put to rest. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, the news broke that Tressel knew about the memorabilia sales before the season started. Incredibly, he knew about the sales well before the initial Tatgate, in which he forced all the players to promise to return next season before being allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl.

After the news broke, Tressel was quickly given a two-game suspension and $250,000 fine. This initial announcement led to one of the most bizarre press conferences I've ever seen. During the press conference, OSU President Gordon Gee brushed off the idea of Tressel being fired and actually said "I hope he doesnt fire me." At several points, AD Gene Smith jumped in to prevent Tressel from answering questions. It was later reported that OSU had considered stronger penalties, including forcing Tressel to miss Spring Practices, but chose to allow him to participate in off-season activities. Later, after the players' appeal to reduce their own suspensions was denied, Tressel decided to request that his own suspension be increased to 5 games.

To be honest, everything about this story upsets me. I'm just going to move on and continue hoping that the NCAA eventually increases Tressel's punishment.

21) HBO "Real Sports" special alleges "Pay for Play" scheme at Auburn (March 2011)

I havent seen the show, but here's a transcript over the relevant portions of the interviews. There's always the possibility of the "Haters" defense or the "Thayer Evans/Jamarkus McFarland" defense, but, on its own, this allegation is pretty huge. Auburn just won the National Title, and this report comes on the heels of the Cam Newton situation.

22) John Junker fired as CEO of the Fiesta Bowl for being a corrupt idiot (March 2011)

Even though I think the title here says it all, here's an extensive analysis of his trangressions. Please raise your hand if you think John Junker and the Fiesta Bown are the only parties in the bowl system who have committed such abuses. I'll wait.

23) Patrick Peterson, Will Lyles, and potential "Pay for Play" scheme (March 2011)

According to the former CB coach at Texas A&M, Will Lyles asked for $80,000 for Texas A&M to sign Patrick Peterson. More specifically, he said they had to "beat" $80,000. Peterson eventually signed with LSU, Please raise your hand if you think that was a coincidence. Once again, I'll wait.

Conclusion (For Now)

This post is already longer than I expected. The noteworthy thing is that it could have easily been longer. My initial list had several additional topics, which ranged from the tragic death of Declan Sullivan to the widespread tactic of coaches deciding to close practices to the general public.

Rather than writing another 1000 words about my own personal feelings, I want to try to set the table for an extended discussion in the comments. Depending on how things go, I'd like to potentially revisit these issues in a later post. In the comments, please feel free to address these two key questions.

1) Have your feelings about college football changed over the past year? If so, why?

2) If Mack Brown, Deloss Dodds, and Bill Powers acted similarly to their Ohio State counterparts during a scandal, how would that have affected your feelings over this season?

For my part, I'm conflicted. I certainly didnt enjoy watching Auburn's farcical "All In" routine last year during the Cam Newton controversy. I especially didnt enjoy hearing fans cheer wildly when Gene Chizik announced "I'll say this very loud and very clear. Cam Newton is eligible at Auburn University. Period. End of Story." Furthermore, I have significant issues with how schools have handled recent controversies such as Tatgate, Rhabdogate, and Declan Sullivan's death. And that doesnt even begin to address the BCS system, NCAA investigations process, or the overinflated importance of preseason polls.

Ultimately, I think the negative stories from this season showed me that I might have a breaking point for being a fan of college football. And that breaking point has absolutely nothing to do with how a team performs on the field.

Hook 'em.

March Madness and the Bracket Conundrum

txtwstr7 — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:45:59 -0000

This year, I finally talked myself into it...

Now, this was something I've considered for a long time, but I've never been able to pull it off. Each year, the temptations were simply too strong. I mean, it always seems so harmless, but, inevitably, it turns into a self-destructive measure. In recent years, it's even ruined the most perfect thing in my life. So, this year, I finally decided to stick with my convictions. I preemptively wrote friends, family, and even some military colleagues to inform them of my decision. It was a tough call, and I got a handful of angry or confused responses. But I did it, and I'm happier for it. In case you haven't guessed by now, I didnt fill out a single bracket this year.

More, after the jump...

Dont worry, I'm not going to spend 1500 words explaining this decision. I'm well aware that this exact type of column has been written many, many, many times. In fact, by running a quick search, I found an article that perfectly encapsulates some of the key points in this discussion.

I found myself in predicaments like those more and more over the years: Do I root for the underdog that has captured a spot in my heart, or for the traditional big-time program that I have going all the way in my pool and stand to make a few bucks if they continue winning?

So I decided a few years ago to stop playing pools and root for whoever I want to win a particular game for any number of reasons, not one of which is financially motivated.

I’m sure anyone in a pool is faced with similar dilemmas as the ones I mentioned. The only difference is I don’t have to give it a second thought anymore. I don’t know anyone who enjoyed Butler’s run to the Final Four last year as much as I did – except, of course, fans of the Bulldogs.

So this isnt a new topic. But I still think it's a worthwhile conversation, especially since I've had such a positive experience during the first few days of the tournament. Despite my current anti-bracket position, I'm fully aware of the value of brackets, and I think its fascinating how the entire country remains glued to the first four days of March Madness.

As we wait for Texas to take on Arizona in the 2nd Round--and, come on, it's the 2nd Round--I wanted to put this question before the BON Community. Do you think brackets help or hurt your experience with the NCAA tournament?

Hook 'Em!

Texas/Mizzou Game as "Texts From Last Night"

txtwstr7 — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 06:06:55 -0000

You know, being a young lawyer is an interesting thing. Even though I haven't started my own legal career (six days and counting), I've spent the last several months talking to some of my UT Law classmates. From what I can gather, there are times when they feel truly inspired. This inspiration can come from several things: a burgeoning sense of knowledge, a series of completed tasks, or sometimes even just looking up at their legal diploma. Naturally, several of my classmates have also experienced periods of crippling self-doubt. This doubt is normally caused by their own inexperience, but, sometimes, their doubt is instead caused by reading another lawyer's brilliant work. Which is an entirely natural reaction. One can feel completely satisfied with their work product until they realize how insignificant it appears in the larger realm.

And that's pretty much how I felt earlier tonight. I sat down to write this "Texts From Last Night" post, then realized that PB had already written two incredible posts over the Missouri game. As I read over his posts, I simply could not imagine a scenario in which any reader would have any residual interest in a post about text messages. But, then again, I'm not sure how any UT Hoops fan could avoid stories about this team and this season. As y'all know, this is shaping up to be a pretty special ride, and I still wanted to share some of the thoughts and reactions from last night's victory.

(xxx): Is it loud?

(xxx): It's rocking. Good crowd.

(xxx): Crowd is good tonight. You'd love it.

(xxx): This crowd is solid.

(xxx): Is it better or worse than the Archer season premiere?

(xxx): C'mon. You cant possibly ask me to compare a Drum crowd to my favorite comedy.

(xxx): They just missed showing where I was standing in the O-Zone during the game two years ago...

(xxx): Against Mizzou?

(xxx): Yeah. Which is probably a good thing, since I said a lot of bad things during the last 10 seconds of that game.

(xxx): We're making Mizzou look worse than their gold uniforms

(xxx): I'm glad we had some legit practices for Mizzou. A short turnaround would have been rough.

(xxx): Yeah, kinda like a football team getting a bye week before playing a gimmicky offense.

(xxx): Based on how we're handling the press, this is like Auburn getting 35 days off before playing Oregon.

(xxx): Ok, this team would legitimately beat the (heck) out of last year's team. That still blows my mind.

(xxx): What happened to Bowers?

(xxx): TT's elbow did as much damage to his face as Balbay's phantom punch did to Blake Griffin's head.

(xxx): We need to run away from them here.

(xxx): I'd settle for jogging away from them. Just need to protect home court.

(xxx): Our bench has contributed 3 points, one board, and one assist...

(xxx): And one steal!

(xxx): We should be up 20 points here...

(xxx): That would require hitting free throws. Which we arent doing tonight.

(xxx): Is missing FT's part of our game plan tonight?

(xxx): What do you mean?

(xxx): Well, I'm kidding, but it kindasorta feels like we're purposely missing FT's to make this game interesting

(xxx): Could you hit 70 percent of your free throws?

(xxx): No, I'm terrible. But that doesnt excuse tonight's disaster from the line.

(xxx): J'Covan needs to J'calmtheheckdown

(xxx): This second half has been ugly.

(xxx): Yup. Not gonna be rewatching this half when I get home. Ugh.

(xxx): Wow. TT doesn't know the words to "The Eyes of Texas." That was awkward.

(xxx): But, then again, we're 18-3, so nevermind. I dont care.

(xxx): If we can win at Reed on Monday, our conference winning streak could get pretty silly...

(xxx): This is already silly. We just beat three Top-15 teams in 2 weeks. Just incredible.

As always, feel free to contribute your own conversations below...

Hook 'Em!

Texas/Kansas Game as "Texts From Last Night"

txtwstr7 — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 05:35:46 -0000

Well, hello there. I'm glad so many Longhorns fans were able to "get over last year" and join the party for today's game. And what a party it turned out to be. Texas went on the road against one of the best teams in the country, dug themselves into a gigantic hole, and then went on a blistering run to score 48 POINTS OVER THE LAST 16 MINUTES OF THE GAME! Throughout the game, my phone was buzzing with a series of texts, and it's almost comical to look back at the gamut of emotions the game produced. This one had it all.

(xxx): Would be nice to get off to a good start here...dont want to let them pounce on us early.

(xxx): Oh, they're pouncing. Like panthers. Or cougars. Something that pounces fiercely.

(xxx): Ummm...geez.

(xxx): Not much else to say. This is a beatdown.

(xxx): Why do we always act so dumb when they double our bigs early in the game?

(xxx): What happened? How are we down so much?

(xxx): Think of something bad that could happen in a basketball game. Whatever you choose...it happened.

(xxx): J'Covan needs to be J'Checked into this game. Now.

(xxx): Good call.

(xxx): Is this score for real?

(xxx): CoJo and Gary need to, you know, hit a freaking shot.

(xxx): We would be down 10 if not for that rejection by the rim.

(xxx): We would be down 12 if not for that rejection by the rim.

(xxx): We would be down...well, I think you get the point.

(xxx): Something is wrong with the rims

(xxx): The more things change, the more we are losing by 10-14 points

(xxx): Hard to make a run when you cant score.

(xxx): Well, we're on pace to score 40 points. For the game.

(xxx): A jump shot. A jump shot. My kingdom for a jump shot.

(xxx): I'd settle for any kind of shot to go down. Even if we shoot underhand.

(xxx): Did we really just end the first half with 4 straight turnovers?

(xxx): Can we win this?

(xxx): Yes. But dont ask me for the odds.

(xxx): D is really stepping up.

(xxx): Umm...game on, dude.

(xxx): Out of seemingly nowhere, too. Let's win this.

(xxx): When we're on our game, we play great defense. We contest every shot, board, loose ball, and play great help defense. This second half has been beautiful.

(xxx): JCB dont give a (darn) about the Phog.

(xxx): He's from Port Arthur, dude.

(xxx): I'm just glad he didnt look at Morningstar. Apparently, that's a tech.

(xxx): JCB has swagger. In fact, this whole team has swagger.

(xxx): I heart all of them. Even the walk-ons.

(xxx): CoJo just Kemba'd them. Love it.

(xxx): You know, it feels like a long time since A&M/Baylor had slam dunk contests against our defense last year.

(xxx): Um, yeah. That feels like ages ago.

(xxx): Unreal. Down 18-3, down 12 at the half, down 10 with 16 to go. And then we ROLLED them.

(xxx): Hook 'em.

(xxx): JCB was the only player who showed up last year, and today he finished the job.

(xxx): You know, I wish the Big Ten teams that we beat would start playing more like the Big East teams that beat us.

(xxx): Which is part of the reason why today's win feels so huge. KU isnt losing more than a handful of games.

(xxx): Ward, Bradley, or Williams could all help this team. But we're still so legit. This team is going to be a tough, tough, tough out in March.

As always, feel free to include your own conversations below...

Hook 'Em!

Further Analysis of the Texas Longhorns TV Deal With ESPN

txtwstr7 — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:03:28 -0000

Now that the dust has settled--and the pundits have spoken--the narrative for the ESPN/Texas TV deal is largely written. And that narrative is "Mo' Money." Which, to be honest, is pretty awesome. However, while we all celebrated what this TV deal means for Texas in another post, I think it deserves a second post with a bit more discussion and analysis. Luckily, we've got a couple of writers who have been following this issue and wanted to provide some thoughts.

Naturally, I think this deal is a pretty big home run for Texas--at least in the short and medium term--but I wanted to highlight a few issues related to this story. For the most part, these issues go beyond rehashing the sticker shock reaction of "OMG! 300 million! THREE HUNDRED MILLION!" that occurred across the country. For one thing, Texas is "only" guaranteed $247.5 million. For another thing, I think the ripple effect of the money is perhaps the more important story. I don't think any of these issues are necessarily groundbreaking, but they are the ones that stick out to me as being somewhat overlooked in the overall analysis of this TV deal.

1) What will be the short-term and long-term actions taken by Texas A&M?

Txtwstr7: To me, A&M could be the whole key to the stability of the current arrangement. When I heard the final news--and saw the final figures--I was immediately curious as to how OU and A&M would respond. Everyone else in the conference (except maybe Mizzou--see below) doesn't really have enough stroke to make any legitimate noise or create a similar network. OU quickly announced their own upcoming network, but A&M is seemingly banking on Beebe's promise and a potential conference network. If the OU/TX TV deals put a wrench in any Big12 Network--as some have speculated--then what does A&M do?

The general consensus is they will be forced to stay put--even if they wanted to leave--but I'm not so sure that's the case. If they can't get the $20+ million payout in a long-term deal, can't create their own network, and aren't going to be a part of a Big 12 Network, then is it still a slam-dunk that they stay put? I understand the argument that the legislature would never let them leave. In fact, I think it's still fairly unlikely that they do leave. However, if the aforementioned situation comes to pass, their financial disparities with TX/OU would be staggering, and it could give them a decent argument for why they need to jump ship. And, if they do, it's not like they are an easily replaceable commodity. Are the Aggies pretty much locked into the conference, or should Texas fans monitor their levels of dissatisfaction?

Hopkins Horn: My attitude about A&M and realignment remains the same: stay, go, whatever, I don't give a f*ck. There's no chance they'll get the same money from their own network, and they know it. A move to the SEC, even if they still have that alleged standing invitation to join the conference, would still leave A&M behind Texas financially. So Aggie will do what Aggie does best: bitch and moan and not do a damn thing to better its own situation. But if they do get a golden ticket to the SEC, whatever, go. To be honest, a large part of my indifference to an Aggie move to the SEC stems from my discounting supposed recruiting advantages A&M, or the whole damn SEC, would receive if the Aggies headed east. Texas is a huge state, and we'll always get our share. The rest have to wind up somewhere, whether it's OU or A&M or LSU or wherever. So, again: leave, stay, I don't give a f*ck.

Learned Hand: I showed up late to the party, but I'll give it the old college try. I think A&M missed the boat by not trying to form a Texas Network with UT and Tech. Institutionally, they're a conservative lot, which is all well and good, but the pace of these deals seems to repeatedly catch them off guard. If I'm right that we're seeing the beginning of a "divide and conquer" strategy by the T.V. networks, A&M needs the cachet the Texas brand has become, at least in the short term. In the short term, I see more flirtation with the SEC and a great deal of sound and fury signifying nothing. In the longer term, I expect them to exert pressure, along with Tech, to join what Texas started. Keep an eye on your legislators.

2) Could Missouri actually be the first team to jump ship?

Txtwstr7: I almost skipped this section, but I think Missouri is being overlooked in the fallout of this deal. And, after what happened in the Realignment Chronicles, I get that. They talked big, but they were forced to stay put. However, while Missouri isn't a big dog in the conference, they aren't exactly a kitten, either. First off, Missouri is becoming increasingly competitive in the two "money" sports. Second, the state contains the St. Louis TV market and has lots of eyeballs. Third, they don't have any political baggage from a sister school. Unlike basically every other school in the conference, they are truly a standalone university who won't be forced to bring another less desirable dance partner to the table.

As mentioned above, we know that Missouri wasn't happy in the "old" Big 12. I mean, their football coach and governor came out and said as much while they were throwing themselves at the Big Ten. And all that went down *before* TX/OU cut side deals for their own networks that would leave the other schools further in the financial dust. Missouri got embarrassed in the Realignment Chronicles--badly--but they may be the only other school (besides A&M) who might be an attractive option to another money conference. Is Missouri being overlooked as a potential sleeping giant in this whole ordeal, or are they still hopelessly tied to the Big 12?

Hopkins Horn: I remember seeing an article during all the realignment madness that indicated that Mizzou was also looking at its own network. I'm not quite sure they're a sleeping "giant," but they're one of those schools that has historically underperformed its potential. A Maryland of the Midwest, if you will. But I don't think they're a flight risk quite yet. The only logical conference for them to move to which would also be a step up is the Big 10, and I don't think the Big Ten would risk ripping apart the Big 12 if there were any chance that would force us to the Pac 12. The Big Ten definitely got the better of the Pac 10 in each conference's move to 12 schools. We might have reached an equilibrium point with realignment for a while.

Another interesting question to ponder: the Pac 10 seemed to reach out to Colorado last summer as a way of keeping Baylor out of the mix. After we turned down the conference, they settled on Utah for a twelfth. In retrospect, if the Pac 10 knew that we were ultimately unobtainable, would the conference have even invited Colorado or would it have stayed at 10?

3) How will Texas exploit its unique relationship with the UIL?

Txtwstr7: Until a few months ago, I didn't realize that UT had such a unique relationship with the UIL. According to state law, the UIL is actually a part of the University of Texas. So, yeah, that's a pretty big deal, and it provides an endless source of potential content. In fact, I think the potential inclusion of UIL events might be the most underrated aspect of this TV deal.

As the linked article explains, the Longhorn Sports Network could televise Texas high-school football games on both Thursday and Saturday nights. It could also televise all non-championship football playoff games. But this barely even scratches the surface of the potential UIL content. The network could televise other high school sports outside of football, in addition to selectively televising some marquee state academic competitions. While I don't think the network should stray too far from the Texas brand, using UIL content seems like a slam-dunk. The possibilities here are endless, but will they be properly exploited?

Hopkins Horn: Heh. I like going after you, as it makes my job easier if you hit the salient points first.

Will the relationship with the UIL be properly exploited in terms of having sych must-see TV as a Game Of The Week and being the exclusive home of the championship games? It very well damn better be, and I can't imagine why it wouldn't be.

Learned Hand: I have nothing to add. I am, however, stocking up on popcorn and awaiting the impending meltdowns from Lubbock and College Station.

4) The Cable Fees Fights for Out-of-State Subscribers

Txtwstr7: As I'll be stationed in D.C. for the next few years, this subject is near and dear to my heart. Unfortunately, it is also largely outside my working knowledge of the situation. Do you have any thoughts on how the network will operate out-of-state? If it simply means paying an extra $2/month or so, that's a pretty easy sell to potential out-of-state subscribers. But will it be that simple? Or can we safely pencil in nasty fights with the cable companies that will prevent a bunch of people from seeing a football game and eight basketball games next year?

Hopkins Horn: This is just pulling things out of my ass, but I imagine some nationwide providers (DirecTV and Time Warner most likely, in my estimation) will play ball pretty easily, and others (Comcast) won't. I think it's a near-certainty that, at the time of the first game on lSN, that we'll see some bitching this fall from some out-of-state BONers that they can't see the game, while other out-of-state fans will have access in their living rooms.

One interesting issue: would UT and ESPN decide to put the more attractive game with BYU, a school with a nationwide following, instead of the weaker Rice game on LSN to force more pressure on OOS providers to pick up the network? There'd be a lot more pressure on Utah (and, to a lesser extent, Vegas and Phoenix) cable providers to pick up the network if that happened. If I were a betting man, I'd wager we'll see the debut of LSN for the BYU game for that very reason.

Learned Hand: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this covers certain internet broadcast rights, and thus there may be a single pricing tier for internet TV viewing. If there's anything akin to ESPN 3, even on a subscription basis, I'm in. Actually, I'm in anyway, even though I see no chance whatsoever in this being a purely al la carte purchase.

5) The Fluidity of the Long-Term Profit Sharing Under the Agreement

Txtwstr7: As everyone knows, 20 years is a long time. We know that Texas will receive about $10 million/year over the first 5 years, and that the contract has some flexibility built in to account for new profits. However, I don't think anyone has nailed down the exact amount of flexibility involved. If this thing turns into a major cash-cow and dramatically exceeds expectations, how much bigger of a piece will Texas take under the agreement? I feel pretty confident that we covered our bases in this deal. However, since ESPN is fronting so many of the start-up costs--and giving us a high guaranteed figure--are we accepting and perhaps even embracing the risk that we'll be dramatically underpaid 10-15 years down the line?

Hopkins Horn: This is getting beyond my pay grade, but I would put some faith in those negotiating the deal for us (and for ESPN, for that matter) to have built in some protections if this starts going either extremely north or extremely south. If it goes north, then we're going to make even more money. If it goes South, then what have we really lost? The revenue from one weak OOC game and eight weak OOC men's hoops games? We'll still be getting money from the conference's football deal, whatever conference that may be. Seems like a pretty risk-free proposition for us.

Learned Hand: We can safely assume there is a strong likelihood that the success of this venture will be known in the 5 year guaranteed period, and reasonable odds both sides will want to renegotiate. There is a substantial portion of the contract going directly to academics, an area that is being hit in the current Texas budget crunch. UT has found a new and innovative way to defray academic costs without the use of tax dollars, and I fully expect the legislature to try to leverage that solution onto other "suitable" schools (A&M and possibly Tech and U of H). I also would expect change in market clauses that would allow both sides to return to the table in certain other circumstances (e.g. Fox-USC for 10 years and 300 million dollars), that alleviate my concerns about Texas being relatively underpaid in the next decade.

6) What Game Will be the "One Football Game Per Year" Under the Agreement?

Txtwstr7: I think this is an interesting question, and one made even more interesting by the fact that our non-conference schedule is booked solid for the first few years of the contract. I would imagine that the "one televised football game per year" will not be a conference game. That really narrows down the options, and it really sets the stage for my main question here. If the game will likely be a non-conference game, is it going to be one of the marquee non-con matchups slated through 2017? Going a step further, was agreeing to put those games on the network a key component of this deal? For example, will the Texas channel be the only way some people can see Texas/ND? Or should we all just expect to see Texas/ISU or Texas/Rice on the network every year?

Hopkins Horn: I wouldn't be so sure that it won't be a conference game once the conference-wide contracts are renegotiated. That will be a very interesting thing to watch. In the interim, I have to imagine that most, if not all, of the sweep of non-conference deals reached over the past few months will have provisions allowing us to show the game on LSN. ND and USC might be the exceptions, but I don't think it's silly to think that the ND home games could be on LSN. And, to be honest, I don't know if anyone involved with the network knows yet, as there are several years to see how the network will play out, but I doubt anyone would unequivocally say "no" to such a proposition today. Also remember that the language, as I saw it, isn't that we'll show one game a year on the new network. It's that we'll show "at least" one.

Another issue is that one must assume that Texas (or any other conference school, for that matter) has the right to tell an existing conference television broadcast partner "no" when that partner tries to select a game for broadcast. One can make this assumption because Texas would have no way to guarantee that it would be able to show "at least one" game a season if all Fox (the scorned partner) had to do to scuttle those plans is select both the Rice and BYU games for showing on FSN.

The idea of a school vetoing being selected for television has been largely a theoretical one until now (why wouldn't anyone not want to be selected?!?), but now Texas will have quite the incentive at least once, if not twice, a season to discourage Fox/FSN from selecting its games. What will this do to the overall value of the conference's television package[s] in the next negotiations if all potential non-ABC/ESPN partners know that one or two Longhorn games will be unavailable?

Update: As this neared publication, I raised this issue on Frank's blog, and a couple of knowledgeable board members chimed in and indicated that Texas probably doesn't have veto rights but that, instead, ESPN will probably use the games it sublicenses from FSN to pick the 1+ games to be moved to the new network. If that explanation is the correct one, then I don't know why that 1+ games couldn't be a conference game. I think I'd been focusing too much on the assumption that it would be the PPV-quality games which would make their way to the new network, but now I'm not convinced that's the case. And I cannot recall, in any off the official announcements, any sort of "OOC" qualifier for which 1+ games will be shown. Perhaps an enterprising reporter can get some clarification?

7) What is a key aspect of this deal that hasn't been previously addressed?

LearnedHand: I do have one question that I want to kick around, and that is: "Is ESPN Changing the Game?" I think ESPN sees some value in trying to change the way it does business away from conference networks/contracts and this may be the first big step.

With the exception of the SEC, I think conference loyalty tends to be a bit of a myth. Fans are typically happy to see their own school, and it's essentially guaranteed that they will pay some premium to ensure that content out of state. With that as a given, the current scheme of conference packages results, to some extent, in significant, margin killing overpayment so that schools like Northwestern/Baylor/Vanderbilt can be paid at a rate sufficient to keep tOSU, Florida and Texas happy. The program network can do a few different things on this front, and at its ultimate form could drastically reduce the cost of signing a conference, if a series of side deals are cut with the individual universities - getting closer to FMV for each school. It could, potentially, nullify the threat of things like the Big Ten network. Downstream, it may decouple negotiations from the conferences, e.g. an ESPN network carrying Texas (and possibly one day A&M and Tech) or USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford with a staggered contract could largely negate the leverage of the other schools in the conference. Call it divide and conquer, or call it University related union busting, but I think this deal means a lot on the grand stage.

Hopkins Horn: That's a great point. Coming out of this deal, what needs to be followed closely is OU's attempt to form its own network. They've already announced their plans to give it a go, which is a pretty interesting development to this story. (Again, I find myself admiring the Sooner approach while mocking A&M's.) If the Sooner Sports Network forms quickly, with a major partner (ESPN or Fox unless someone else like Comcast wants to jump in), for pretty good bucks (not what we got, but substantial nonetheless given the smaller market), then I think we can say that we've just witnessed a game-changer rather than a Texas-sized one off.

Txtwstr7: LearnedHand eloquently stated something I've tried to explain to my friends. We've been largely focused on our own plight, but the potential ramifications of this deal's success are much, much larger. I think the most likely scenario here is that ESPN wants to see if individualized networks are the natural progression from the massive financial success the Big Ten Network. And, if that's their endgame, then how better to test drive this hypothesis than by using the University of Texas as the guinea pig?

Anyways, those are our thoughts, for better or worse...what say the BON Community?

Hook ‘Em!

Bowl Disinterest and the 2010 CFB Narrative

txtwstr7 — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 20:39:04 -0000

As Texas fans, we've become pretty accustomed to going to bowl games. Good ones, too. In fact, in recent years, anything less than a trip to a BCS bowl was considered a disappointment. Only a few short months ago, this season appeared to be no different. We went to BCS bowls with Vince, we went to BCS bowls with Colt, and we damn near won a National Championship game with Garrett Gilbert getting his first meaningful action of his career. And then UCLA happened. Iowa State happened. Baylor happened. And, yeah, Kansas State happened, too. This season contained no shortage of beatings and embarrassments. We would not be going to a BCS Bowl, and, after the final whistle against A&M, we lost our chance to go to *any* bowl. For many "new generation" Texas fans, these were unchartered waters.

In discussing the bowl season with many of my UT Friends, I've been mildly suprised by their overall lack of interest in the bowl season. With Texas licking their wounds from a 5-7 season, I expected most UT Fans to have a diminished interest in the bowls. What I didnt expect was a sense of total apathy towards the entire bowl season. One of my best friends--and a legitimate CFB fan--was so turned off that he couldnt even name all the BCS matchups. Another went on a lengthy rant over how none of the bowls except the BCS Championship even matter. These individual positions werent surprising. However, I found it interesting that the overall lack of interest seemed to reflect something larger altogether.

To wit, while much of the bowl disinterest likely correlates with UT's terrible season, I've been probing a larger sense of discontent with the entire NCAA system. In fleshing this out, I was astonished to think of all the major "negative" NCAA stories from this season that I could conjure off the top of my head. When it comes to college football, the narrative for this season is largely written, and it isnt pretty. Even more importantly, the nature of the overall narrative seems to cut against the entire selling point of NCAA athletics.

After the jump, I'll try to pull this whole thing together, largely by taking a trip down memory lane...

To summarize, my main point for this article is that most of the media coverage from this college football season has centered on stories that undercut the main selling point of the NCAA, which is having amateur student-athletes who play football solely in exchange for a college scholarship. This season has seen story after story after story bringing into question the legitimacy of this selling point, as a series of extremely high-profile players and programs have been sanctioned. Or, in some cases, they have not been sanctioned, which drew even heavier criticism.

But outside of these scandals--which happen in some version every season--this season has seen additional stories stories that further erode the distinctions presumably separating the NCAA from professional sports. In combination, I think these additional stories have helped diminish the interest in the bowl season from general fans unattached to any of the participants.

Before I go any further, I think it's important to look at all the "negative" stories from this season. It's a pretty staggering list, especially when you consider that they all relate to either money of the lack of "amateur" status of student-athletes.

1) NCAA Nearly Expands March Madness to 96 teams (February 2010)

This story had nothing to do with college football, but I think it remains the perfect precursor to discussing conference realignment. In all honesty, I dont remember if I've ever been as upset by a sports story as I was by the prospect of the NCAA ruining March Madness by expanding the field to 96 teams. I vividly remember the pit in my stomach when I read it was a "done deal," and the entire proposal was about one thing and one thing only: mo' money.

I fully understood the rationale--once again, mo' money--but I was devastated that the NCAA was considering destroying an essentially perfect product. Almost immediately, the proposal was roundly criticized, and the NCAA eventually chose to expand to only 68 teams.

2) Conference Realignment (Summer 2010)

While Hopkins Horn remained our resident expert over Conference Realignment, I was pretty heavily invested in the story myself. I co-authored a chapter in "The Eyes of Texas 2010" with PB and DimeCoverage over Conference Realignment, which required such heavy revisions that the initial version was almost entirely unrecognizable from the finished product. I dont want to rehash the entire story, but I do want to summarize its overall effect.

For the most part, all the stories over realignment—including those dissolving long-standing rivalries and associations--have been purely about money. This also hurts the overall NCAA narrative, as it’s hard to sell "rivalry, history, and tradition" when it’s clear that schools will abandon their existing relationships for a certain price. In a largely forgotten part of the Big 12 realignment story, Missouri took nearly comical efforts to express their interest in joining the Big Ten. And, no, their interest wasnt primarily motivated by academics. And, like the potential March Madness expansion, I get that. But it doesnt mean that I have to like it, especially from the Texas perspective.

Speaking of the Texas perspective, I think the entire issue was perfectly summarized by Scipio Tex's epic realignment piece. If you havent read it, this is the most important segment for the purposes of this article, and I think it encapsulates party of why the realignment stories weren't exactly helpful for college football:

The Texas Longhorns

This is the third part of the Longhorn Trinity. The Holy Spirit. The fans.

Let me write this slowly: The. Texas. Longhorns. Are. Not. A. Business.

We should be run as a business, but we are not a business. Maximization of profit isn’t our only endpoint. This is supposed to be fun. Seriously. Fun. And interesting. We’ve now lost the two best road venues in the league and the 10 team full conference slate now assures us of frequent visits to some of the most depressing venues in the Corn Belt.

Columbia, Missouri – by all accounts a fine little college town, but not exactly Paris – is now our road gem. Our fans can look forward to road trips to Ames, Stillwater, and Manhattan over Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Eugene, and Phoenix.

Explain to me exactly what this current move did for Longhorn fans? Fans. Me? You? Us? Not Longhorns, Inc.

3) USC Hammered by NCAA Sanctions (June 2010)

After a four-year investigation, the NCAA slapped the "lack of institutional control" label on USC and bombarded them with sanctions. This was a huge story, as most fans seemingly expected the dynastic Trojans to get off with a slap on the wrist. This got the NCAA some good press, but it also caused the media to call into the question the legitimacy of USC's 2004 National Title. About a month later, USC decided to send back their copy of Reggie Bush's Heisman trophy.

4) UNC Suspensions and Dismissals (July-September 2010)

Stories about UNC being investigated emerged over the summer. The investigations quickly proved fruitful. On the verge of their marquee matchup with LSU, UNC suspended 13 players (and 6 starters) because of various allegations and infractions. Most notably, star player Marvin Austin was suspended and then later kicked off the team for accepting improper benefits. The story eventually led to John Blake resigning on September 6th, presumably due to his ties with agent Gary Wichard. There were tons of other little nuggets and rumors about this case, but let's move on.

5) Various NCAA Coaches With "Conference Call" Over Problems with Agents (August 2010)

After a series of off-season rumors and scandals, Nick Saban spearheaded a conference call over how to "protect" players from unscrupulous sports agents. The depth of the problem was explained pretty succinctly by the linked article:

Saban organized the first call -- which included NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell -- in the wake of investigations involving alleged improper dealings with agents at Alabama, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina and Georgia. He said the American Football Coaches Association is also involved.

6) Alabama Player Marcel Dareus Suspended (September 2010)

I could have gone with some of the other investigations mentioned above, but the suspension of Dareus--who ended Colt's career and returned the ill-fated shovel pass for a touchdown--was probably the biggest of these stories. And it reinforces the fact that a lot of the pre-season chatter was diverted to discusssions of investigations, illegal benefits, and suspensions.

7) AJ Green Jersey Suspension and Controversy (September 2010)

Unlike some of the other stories, the AJ Green suspension dovetailed a much larger discussion. After he was suspended for four games for selling a game jersey, several pundits declared the NCAA to be hypocritical. As Michael Wilbon--and many others--noted, Georgia sold 17 versions of Green's jersey to the general public.

8) Reggie Bush Returns the Heisman Trophy (September 2010)

Before we can get out of the month of September, we have to mention that Reggie Bush returned his Heisman trophy. This once again reignited all the stories over his illegal benefits and his role in the most dominant program of the past decade. Not exactly a shining moment for the NCAA.

9) "Death to the BCS" Eviscerates the Current BCS System (October 2010)

The work of several Yahoo Sports authors, "Death to the BCS" declared itself to be "the definitive case against the Bowl Championship Series." This book produced some strong indictments against the already unpopular BCS system, and it was widely produced and discussed all over the internet. Additionally, the book forced Bill Hancock to repeat all of his tired arguments over why the current system should remain in place.

10) "30 for 30" Specials Highlighting Negative Aspects of NCAA/Recruiting (November/December 2010)

This fall, ESPN's "30 for 30" series included the stories of Marcus Dupree and the SMU Program receiving the "Death Penalty." Once again, these were not very flattering stories for college football, and the documentaries pulled few punches. If you are unfamiliar with either of these stories, here are Barking Carnival's excellent recaps of the subject matters of "The Best That Never Was" and "The Pony Excess".

11) Gordon Gee and "Little Sisters of the Poor" Comment (November 2010)

With many fans salivating over getting to see Boise State or TCU play a marquee post-season opponent other than each other, Ohio State President Gordon Gee decided to explain to everyone why they weren't worthy of a BCS title spot. While his sentiments weren't entirely misguided, his comment that the non-BCS schools played "The Little Sisters of the Poor" was heavily criticized. Additionally, as pointed out by Dan Wetzel, his comments actually served to spotlight some of the key problems with the BCS.

12) Cam Newton Story With Bombshell after Bombshell (November/December 2010)

Everyone still reading this article knows all about the Cam Newton scandal, which became the biggest story of the entire season. After the dust settled, and Newton was ruled eligible, the NCAA faced no shortage of criticism for their actions and inactions in the case. But the story evolved into something much more than Cam Newton's eligibility. As I pointed out in a Pundit Roundup column entirely dedicated to the Cam Newton coverage, the story allowed authors to cherry-pick from a buffet of issues related to the case. These issues ranged from whether he should win the Heisman to whether athletes should be paid in college. Authors were able to use the case as a way to project their own opinions over a variety of issues, most of which were unflattering to the NCAA.

Bottom line: However you feel about the Cam Newton case, it's hard to see how the story projected a positive image of the NCAA and its system.

13) Lackluster BCS Matchups (December 2010)

With the exception of the Rose Bowl and National Championship Game, I dont think fans were incredibly excited about the matchups in the other BCS games. The lack of excitement is further demonstrated by the next item on this list.

14) Unranked UConn Cant Sell Fiesta Bowl tickets (December 2010)

In a further indictment of the current system, there were a flood of stories related to schools being unable to sell their allotment of tickets for bowl games. Most notably, UConn had to resort to begging fans to buy Fiesta Bowl tickets, and the school was projected lose a significant amount of money on the bowl game.

15) Ohio State Players *Not* Suspended for Sugar Bowl (December 2010)

Once again, everyone still reading this article knows about this story. Around two weeks ago, several Ohio State players were found to have violated NCAA rules by selling various items. After the news broke, various parties succesfully lobbied for a postponed punishment. The entire story--which culminated in Ohio State officials claiming the players were not adequately educated over the rules--caused me to roll my eyes quite a few times. Apparently, I wasnt alone.

In discussing the issue, Dan Wetzel said Terrelle Pryor's acts "exposed the charade of college athletics." Over the course of one column, Wetzel discussed the college football cash flow, inadequate player compensation, the silliness of Ohio State's defense, the USC sanctions, BCS cronyism, other potential violations at Ohio State, and the overall fecklessness of the NCAA system.

After reading the article, it's easy to understand why someone would have simply skipped the game. This is especially true if they didnt have cable, since the game--like all the other BCS games--was solely televised on ESPN.

Conclusion

I'm not one of the forefront authorities on College Football. Far from it. There are thousands and thousands of people--including multiple authors on this site--more qualified to write about the sport. I'm just a fan. A Texas fan. And I know a lot of other Texas fans. To that extent, I've noticed a sense of apathy towards the bowl season this year. This can potentially be explained by UT's terrible season. If we had played in a BCS Bowl, I'm pretty sure that most of our fanbase would have been more plugged into the bowl season. But maybe not. Maybe the apathy is more systemic.

As I've tried to outline in this post, the narrative for this season is pretty indicting over the current state of college football in relation to its purported selling points. I'm not a Chicken Little, but I think it's clear that things aren't functioning smoothly. And I think it's clear that fans are frustrated. Especially those who are supportive of teams who didnt get to play a 13th or 14th game this season.

Maybe I'm off-base with this post. Maybe this whole issue is irrelevant. It's not like college football is going away. The money for the sport is there, and it will continue to be there. But I have found this bowl season to be especially interesting, as it has given Texas fans a chance to see the perspective of fans less fortunate over the last decade. And, from what I've seen, that perspective has led to an apathy that would have previously seemed inconceivable.

Hook 'Em.

'Horns Beat Spartans, Move to 10-2

txtwstr7 — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 03:24:31 -0000

Exactly one year ago--to the day--Texas beat Michigan State at the Erwin Center to move to 11-0. It was a well-played and entertaining game, and it seemingly validated all the hype over the talented Texas squad. Furthermore, that win against MSU was preceded by a similarly impressive win against North Carolina only a few days earlier. Incredibly, last year's game against the Spartans turned out to be the last time Texas defeated a ranked opponent; despite the Horns' early-season success, they went 0-6 against ranked teams to close out the season.

Tonight, with a 67-55 victory over the Spartans, Texas once again pulled off the impressive feat of beating North Carolina and Michigan State in the span of a few days. Even more impressively, they won both games on the road. In fact, tonight's victory ended Michigan State's much-publicized streak of 52 consecutive home victories against non-conference opponents. Essentially, Texas was the first non-con team to win a game in East Lansing in the last 7 years. This was exactly the type of game--against a good team and hostile crowd--that young teams can be expected to lose. But we didnt. Tonight was a virtuoso win, even if wasn't exactly a virtuoso performance. Texas did enough to win, but, unlike last year, I doubt this will be their best performance of the season. To put it more simply, the win tonight feels bigger and more important than our actual performance, which was really-good-but-not-great.

If you didnt see the game, the last few sentences might be confusing. After the jump, I'll try to provide some clarity...

Game Narrative: Considering that Texas trailed for less than one minute of the entire game, the player notes from tonight are far more meaningful than an extended recap of the two halves. In watching the game, the narrative tonight is fairly simple. Texas built up an early first-half lead, blew it over the last 4 minutes, and then delivered a total beatdown in the second half. More specifically, if you take out the last 4:00 of the first-half, Texas outscored the Spartans 64-44 over the other 36 minutes.

However, an even simpler explanation for tonight's game--which dominated the ESPN post-game analysis--is that Michigan State did not play very well. A lot of their poor performance had to do with Texas's pressure, intensity, and tenacity on the defensive end, but both halves contained a plethora of comedic misses and miscues from the Spartans. As one of my friends put it during the game, "for an experienced team, they are making some pretty ridiculous mistakes." In the first half, the Spartans shot an even-worse-than-it-looks 29% (11-37), a feat which continually seemed to perplex Jay Bilas. MSU threw away several passes, made some really terrible decisions with the basketball, and, at one point, even caused Tom Izzo to do one of the most epic facepalms in the history of facepalms.

However, while the Spartans' first half performance felt pretty egregious, their second half was even worse. Texas out-everything'd the Spartans over the last 20 minutes, including holding a 22-20 rebounding advantage. Perhaps most impressively, Texas had 8 steals in the second half, several of which led to dunks in transition. Similar to the first half, Michigan State missed several point-blank shots, and actually shot an even lower percentage (28%) in the second half.

All that said, I dont mean to diminish tonight's win in any way. Texas played some really spirited basketball tonight, and the victory can hardly be called a fluke. As a Texas fan, this game was a lot of fun to watch. We flat-out beat Michigan State on their home court. We beat them bad enough that their fans booed them during the second half, and many of them left the game early. Road wins of this magnitude just dont happen very often.

Onto the player evaluations...

Player Notes

Jordan Hamilton: Another big-time opponent, another 20-8 performance from Jordan Hamilton. It really amazes me how he can score 20 points in games where it doesnt even feel like he has everything working. Tonight, Jordan took 4 three-pointers in the first 5 minutes and seemed to be hanging on the perimeter for most of the first half. Not his best effort. Then, as we've seen him do a few times, Jordan just had a monster second half. He drilled some jumpers, worked harder to diversify his offense, and even dished out a few nice assists. His 14-6-3 line over the last 20 minutes is why he's going to make a lot of money in a few months.

J'Covan Brown: You really cant make this stuff up. In the first half, JCB started out as his "good" version. He dished two assists in his first minute on the floor, including a pretty alley-oop to Hamilton. His next two minutes, he grabbed a rebound and blocked a shot. Then, after avoiding any silly mistakes during his first stretch on the floor, JCB launched a ridiculous 25-footer that immediately got him pulled from the game. In the second half, he entered the game with Texas holding a 13-point lead. On the first possession after he entered the court, he launched another three-pointer with over 20 seconds left on the shot clock. Then, two possessions later, he turned the ball over. Then he sat down the rest of the game. So it goes. Anyone concerned that JCB is now shooting about 25% from behind-the-arc for the season?

Gary Johnson: Really nice effort from Gary tonight, who scored some really tough baskets. He played hard, he fought hard, and he defended hard. Which is exactly what we've come to expect from him.

Tristan Thompson: Interesting game from Thompson tonight. Obviously, he had a monster line of 17-15, but he really struggled with his post moves tonight. In fact, if you take out his 3 dunks, then he only shot 3-10 from the field. If you break it down even further, he had 3 dunks, 3 layups, and he missed all 5 of his jumpers. But that's really just nitpicking. He was a beast tonight, especially on the glass, and it wasnt surprising to see Texas make a concerted effort to feed him the ball in the first half.

Cory Joseph: CoJo didnt have another monster offensive game tonight, but he had a few shots that rattled out. I'm more impressed by his decisions with the basketball, largely exemplified by the fact that he only had 1 turnover in 36 minutes. He also received a high compliment from Jay Bilas, who referred to him as a "bigger version of DJ Augustin."

Dogus Balbay: Not a lot of minutes from Dogus tonight, who racked up 4 fouls in 13 minutes. As expected, MSU immediately demonstrated they were going to sag off of him. Texas has continued to push the pace when Balbay is in the game, which has really helped minimize his deficiencies.

Matt Hill: Hill played really well tonight and was heavily praised by Barnes in his post-game comments. In his season-high 22 minutes, Hill did a lot of things that wont show up in the box score. In particular, he played active and smart defense, yet avoided receiving fouls when challenging the MSU players near the basket. While not as eye-popping as Wangmene's game against UNC, tonight's performance was a step forward for Matt Hill.

Alexis Wangmene: Consider his game the opposite of Hill's. Unlike Hill, Wangmene took a step backwards tonight. After his fantastic performance against UNC, I was interested to see if the Wingman could build off of it. He didnt. To be fair, Wangmene didnt get a ton of minutes tonight, but he did pull his trademarked move of having a great pass clang off his iron hands.

Jai Lucas: If you blinked, you missed him. Which, for the most part, is a good thing.

Free Throw Watch: Texas hit only 11-21 free throws tonight. Thankfully, it didnt matter.

Rick Barnes: Kudos to Rick Barnes for having this team ready to play tonight. After the win on Saturday, it would have been easy to let this team get complacent with a 1-1 road trip. My favorite move by Rick Barnes tonight was when he called a timeout with 5:40 left with a 59-50 lead. MSU was in the midst of a 6-2 run and had just missed a wide-open three-pointer and putback that would have made the lead start feeling uncomfortable. After the timeout, Texas went on a 6-0 run to ice the game. Well played, sir.

UCONN Watch: I just bought my tickets to the UConn game tonight. The 4th-ranked Huskies will be coming to the Erwin Center on January 8th, and, two-plus weeks out, the game is still not sold out. Consider this your heads-up.

Next Game: December 31st against Coppin State at 2 PM

Hook 'Em!

Post Game Thread: Horns Beat Heels in Greensboro

txtwstr7 — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:16:26 -0000

After blowing a 10-point lead, having seemingly half the team in foul trouble, and being behind for almost the entire second half, Texas went on a late scoring run to defeat UNC for the 4th consecutive time.

CoJo made up for the Pittsburgh game, no?

Wiggo will be around later with a full review. So, so much to unpackage from this game. For now, revel in the fact that this team is 9-2 and more than meeting the preseason expectations.

Hook 'Em.

Pundit Roundup Tackles the Cam Newton Story

txtwstr7 — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:54:02 -0000

BON was supposed to have more Pundit Roundup columns this year. There were even several e-mail discussions about it. So, yeah, it hasn't exactly worked out that way. People got busy. And then more people got busy. And then everyone got even busier. Plus, the entire time, Texas kept losing. To Iowa State. To Baylor. It was bad enough that people--and especially one certain coordinator--might even get fired.

Naturally, despite our relative silence, other people kept writing about college football. Primarily, they have written about Cam Newton and Auburn, which has become the story of the year. Pundits from every possible forum have covered the Cam Newton story from every possible angle. And, as you have probably noticed by now, there are many, many angles to this story, especially as it has further evolved over the last few days. Which, for this column, is pretty much exactly the point. By now, I'm sure everyone is sick of reading about the nitty-gritty details of the case, so I want to instead cover the coverage of the Newton saga and highlight the real need for long-form journalism to analyze this case.

After the jump, Pundit Roundup is back, but don't call it a comeback.

Before we get started, a few disclaimers. While I've read quite a few articles about the Cam Newton saga--especially the past few days--I haven't read every single piece written about the issue. So please feel free to highlight some of the better pieces in the comments. Additionally, I don't mean to give a solution over how to "solve" the Cam Newton problem. Similarly, I don't want to go into too much concrete analysis over the larger issues the case presents.

The goal here is much less ambitious, but it fits more in line with the tone and purpose of Pundit Roundup. I want to walk through the coverage gaps in the individual stories over the Cam Newton case, while also explaining how these gaps are being exacerbated by the inherent problems of deadlines, word limits, and rushes to judgment. Unfortunately, while the nuances involved make this story best suited for long-form journalism, the sheer amount of angles and issues has also made it obnoxiously well suited for cheap and easy articles that simply highlight one or two issues at the expense of all the others. I don't think I need to tell you which format has been more popular with national writers.

The Problem of Coverage Gaps

While coverage gaps are both common and expected, I think these gaps have become far more meaningful--and somewhat harmful--within the context of the Cam Newton coverage. As mentioned above, there is no shortage of angles in covering the Cam Newton story. Anyone can cherry-pick any one of the numerous issues or positions associated with the case to write a column. This is especially true as new pieces of information keep filtering out. To highlight this point, take a look at the archive of the columns written by our good buddy Thayer Evans over the last month; he's written eleven columns, eight of which are about Cam Newton or Auburn. Yet, despite all these columns, I'd argue that Evans has largely avoided covering many of the key issues associated with this story. I'm not saying that the Heisman vote isn't important, or that the alleged cheating scandal at Florida isn't important, or even that Cam Newton's media silence isn't important, but I don't think that columns over these issues should come at the expense of covering some of the other issues involved. I don't mean to dog-pile on Evans, who has come under a vicious assault from Auburn fans. In fact, his coverage of the issue is the perfect stepping stone for the larger point here, which is that the amount of angles for this story has been an overall hindrance to its coverage.

Put more simply, instead of being the strength of the coverage, the countless number of angles for this story has instead allowed columns to essentially talk past each other. This can be highlighted by simply listing some of the types of articles we've seen over the last six weeks. The "scooping" articles don't address the larger context of this story, which is the alleged S-E-C (!!!) cheating involved everywhere. However, the "everyone cheats, so who cares" perspective ignores the fact that some schools actually follow the rules. The "media is conducting a silly witch hunt" articles--which have basically disappeared--either avoided admitting there was a lot of smoke to this story or said they didn't care. In such a column, one writer even said "I'm not getting into whether Newton is guilty of any of the things he's been accused of."

It's easy to keep going. The "Should Cam Win the Heisman" or "Cam wont talk to the media" articles are extremely self-limiting in their scope. The "system is broken" articles rarely try to offer comprehensive solutions. Conversely, the "here's the solution" articles largely avoid discussing the situation at hand, primarily using Cam Newton as a platform to discuss larger issues; essentially, some of them say "dont hate the player, hate the game," yet never actually concretely discuss whether or not Cam Newton should still be eligible. And, from what I can tell, that's especially the tone when the solution merely involves authorizing or encouraging the types of alleged payments at the heart of this story. One writer even declared "I don't give a damn whether he took money or not." Most recently, many of the "NCAA is gutless, unfair, and feckless" articles are using false equilibrium when trying to compare this case to previous precedents. Cam Newton isn't Albert Means, he isn't Damon Stoudemire, he isn't AJ Green, and, as Dr. Saturday explained, he also isn't Reggie Bush. Additionally, these articles also tend to avoid considering the possibility--however remote--that Cam Newton and Auburn might actually be telling the truth.

The Potential Effect of the Information Vacuum

In discussing this topic with resident BON author "learnedhand," he speculated the coverage gaps were facilitated by the utter vacuum of information when the story broke. Essentially, this lack of information allowed for pundits to post a wide spectrum of concrete opinions based on a mere fragment of facts. For them, that was a pretty sweet deal. The initial story provided fodder for several easy columns, yet it also included the cover of not having enough information to provide ironclad conclusions over the case. In his words, they could instead just use "relatively facile bloviating" in hammering out a paint-by-numbers column, without necessarily being forced to permanently stand behind their convictions. Now, I don't want to go too far in outlining his thoughts--in fact, I've begged him to spin his thoughts into a separate article--but he ultimately questioned whether or not there were enough incentives for detailed investigations from the commentators on the issue. And I think that's an interesting thought, albeit one that is somewhat undercut by the NCAA essentially clarifying the issues involved with their recent eligibility ruling.

The Eligibility Ruling, "The System," and Andrew Sharp

I don't think that anyone except Auburn fans should be satisfied with the NCAA's investigatory process or their recent eligibility ruling. But I do believe that if someone wants to complain about either the investigation or the ruling--as many have--then such a commentary should synthesize both the current situation and the possibility of future reforms. A lot of "Chicken Little" columns over the eligibility ruling have brought up several valid points, especially the fact that this ruling has gift-wrapped the "plausible deniability defense" for both individual players and schools in such situations. With this precedent, the player can just step aside and let others (including their parents) seek payment for their commitment. While that may be the case, I don't think too many people will be satisfied if the NCAA merely closes this loophole this summer with a well-publicized rule change. When it comes to analyzing the Cam Newton story, the overall system matters, and the overall system is much larger than this one jurisdictional loophole. Essentially, this story is about Cam Newton, but it's also about a lot more than just Cam Newton. It's about the entire legitimacy of the NCAA and college football.

To be fair, there's no shortage of articles connected with the concept of meaningful NCAA reform. Most notably, in a heavily-linked column from a few weeks ago, SB Nation's Andrew Sharp spent 4,300 words outlining his plan for how to "fix" the Cam Newton problem. But, in an overlooked point, this column was the *second* part of his analysis of the issue. Sharp preceded his discussion of potential solutions by writing another column providing his stance over the problems inherent within the media, the NCAA system, and how each of them demonstrated blatant hypocrisies in dealing with Cam Newton. In both columns, Sharp goes way, way too far for my tastes--my own stances are much more moderate--but that's not really even the point. Even though I disagreed with several of his premises and conclusions, I thought Sharp's columns provided a much-needed platform for an important and meaningful discussion over both the Cam Newton case and the overall NCAA system. I wish articles like those were the rule, rather than the exception.

Conclusion

In getting back on track, let me try to bring this home. I guess my main point is that analyzing "The System" *is* a key part of the Cam Newton story, but not to the extent that the other factual or editorial parts of story should just be ignored. Conversely, any discussion of the factual or editorial parts of this story should also acknowledge the context of the overall system. Now, I fully understand it may be impractical to expect pundits to comprehensively cover an issue with so many nuances. Deadlines and word limits do exist. But, while this story has served as an early Christmas present to the media, it has not been as charitable to the general public. By giving us steady streams of columns addressing singular issues, the media coverage has given readers tons of miniature stocking stuffers instead of providing the more meaningful presents created by long-form journalism. Which is exactly what we deserve.

Barnes Wins 500th as Horns Crush Bearkats

txtwstr7 — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 04:32:59 -0000

A few years ago, I wrote a post ranking all the home games for the entire season. While I wont be writing a similar post this season--due to my upcoming military training--I would imagine this game would rank really low on such a list. Coming off two brutally taxing games against top-shelf opponents, Rick Barnes was comfortable in giving double-digit minutes to all nine of our scholarship players. As a result, no one played over 28 minutes tonight. This led to a lot of wonky lineups in the first half that produced sloppy basketball.

However, while this game wont remain firmly entrenched in anyone's memories, there are several individual storylines that took a step forward tonight. After the jump, I'll comment on the crowd, provide a narrative of the game, and then go into individual player breakdowns.

Erwin Center Crowd: Y'all know what's coming, so I'll keep this short. Coming off seven years of using student tickets, I decided to sit in the mezzanine with some relatives tonight. After leaving West Campus around 6:15, I walked to the Erwin Center, paid $7 for a general admission ticket, and then walked to their section. It was that easy. Despite the simpleness of this process, it was a totally dead crowd that provided zero buzz.

Basically, it costs more to buy a large teriyaki bowl combo from Jack-in-the-Box than it does to attend a UT Basketball game. And, on Saturday for the game against Rice, it costs even less than that. From the UT Website:

Texas men's basketball hosts Rice University for a game you don't want to miss. Fans who bring their ticket stub from the Nov. 25 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game will receive a general admission ticket for $6. Fans can also bring a new unwrapped toy to donate to Orange Santa and receive a general admission ticket for $2.

Game Narrative: As I mentioned above, the first half was a sloppy affair that involved 23 turnovers from the two teams. From the opening tip, Texas was pushing the ball, and the starters jumped out to a quick 10-4 lead at the first TV timeout. However, coming out of this break, Barnes substituted Brown and Lucas for Hamilton and Balbay. Less than a minute later, Barnes substituted Matt Hill for Tristan Thompson. After these starters were pulled, Texas predictably went through some rough patches of offense. Marred by some offensive fouls and missed 3's from each of the guards on the floor (Lucas, Brown, Joseph), the Texas lead was only 12-8 when Balbay, Thompson, and Hamilton came back into the game around the second TV timeout.

After some really ugly basketball--including a string of turnovers by the teams on on 4 straight possessions--Texas finally started to pull away with its best players back on the floor. Knocking down five straight shots, Texas went on a 9-0 run over two minutes to expand its lead to 23-8 at the 7:30 mark. After the lead increased to 25-10, Rick Barnes once again did a mass substitution, putting in Lucas/Brown/Hill for Balbay/Hamilton/Johnson and then later Wangmene for Thompson. And, once again, the team struggled with these lineups on the floor. After SHSU closed to 27-16, Texas used the re-insertions of Balbay and Hamilton to go on a 6-2 run to end the half with a 33-18 lead.

The beginning to the 2nd half was bizarre, as SHSU racked up 4 team fouls in the first 91 seconds of the half and 6 fouls within the first 3:30. Despite the slew of early whistles in the half, Texas played much crisper and efficient basketball. In fact, after having 12 turnovers in the first half, Texas only turned the ball over 3 times in the second half. Additionally, the team shot 57% from the field during the half, which included missing a few gimmes. Using a barrage of jumpers, made free throws (!!!!!), and lay-ups, Texas boosted their lead up to 49-26 in the first 6 minutes and never looked back. The rest of the game was just a further continuation of the beatdown, so let's get into the player observations.

Player Notes

Jordan Hamilton: What a stud. I yelled "I love you, Jordan" from the mezzanine about 10 times tonight, which is about 8 more times than I professed my affection for him during all of last season. He was outstanding. His crazysexycool stat line of 25 points and 9 boards on 9/12 shooting doesnt even give him justice. Jordan scored from all over the court tonight. He knocked down jumpers, posted up, diced through the lane a few times, and knocked down 5 of 6 free throws. I wasnt even too upset when he got too aggressive in trying to take the ball to the hoop in transition.

Bottom line: Jordan scored 25 points in only 27 minutes tonight, and I never really felt like he was trying to force his shot. It's his 5th straight mega-stud performance, yet I dont think we're even close to seeing his best efforts of the season. He's playing hard, he's playing well, and he's my favorite player on the team right now.

J'Covan Brown: The best news about J'Covan's game tonight is that he didnt have any emotional blow-ups. In fact, the one time it looked like he was going to pout or sulk, he was quickly met by Balbay, who made sure he calmed down. Tonight wasn't a breakthrough performance from Brown, and he still had a handful of silly turnovers, but it definitely wasnt a step backwards. I also thought he was pretty active on the defensive end, which was nice.

Gary Johnson: The box score is really misleading over how Gary played tonight. Even though he accumulated his usual 9 points and 9 rebounds, he struggled for most of the game. In fact, before piling up 7 points in the last 4 minutes, Gary looked uncharacteristically out-of-sync. He missed his first 5 shots and started to press a bit. At one instance, he missed a point-blank putback and looked very frustrated with himself. Some have already started pontificating over how Gary is potentially being affected by the new players and offense, and I'd love to see some people tackle this issue in the comments.

Tristan Thompson: Not a strong game from Thompson, but, in his defense, he really didnt get a lot of looks. The SHSU coach credited Antuan Bootle for helping lock up Thompson's post game, but the reality is that Thompson was rarely targeted tonight. He was so uninvolved that I would have guessed that he played the least minutes of any starter. As it turns out, he played more minutes than anyone else on the team. Bizarre.

Cory Joseph: Tonight, we saw some glimpses of Joseph's offensive game. He hit some jumpers in the flow of the offense and actually made all three of his shots from inside the arc. Unfortunately, he still hasn't gotten his outside shot to go down. He missed another pair of 3's tonight, which takes his 3P% down to 15% for the season. He didnt try to do too much tonight, and it actually suited our efforts well. Work in progress.

Dogus Balbay: Dogus played great tonight. He was pushing the tempo, attacking the basket, and being much more active on the court. While he missed his only "real" jumper, he scored six buckets, all of which came from within 2 feet of the basket. He also played his traditional defense and gathered his normal assortment of steals, assists, and rebounds. Even though SHSU sagged off of him, Balbay was able to consistently finish at the rim and never felt like a liability. In fact, perhaps the simplest summation of Balbay' s game came from Balbay himself: "I just ran up the court and tried to get easy baskets."

Matt Hill: Plain and simple, this was Matt Hill's best game of the season. In fact, his performance helped demonstrate exactly why he got so much praise from Barnes during the off-season. In his 14 minutes, he grabbed 6 boards and had 3 blocks. One of his blocks was particularly noteworthy, as it came after one of our other defenders let a Bearkat blow by him. Additionally, and in a contrast to Wangmene, I thought Hill was also very comfortable within his limited role in the offensive sets. I know it's a broken record, but, with our severe lack of depth, Hill and/or Wangmene must be able to give quality minutes off the bench for Thompson or Johnson. Right now, Matt Hill looks like that guy.

Jai Lucas: I'm not going to dogpile on Jai tonight, even though the team went through some rough stretches in the first half with him in the game. Despite his limitations, which were apparent even tonight, he had some nice sequences in the second half and didnt turn the ball over. But let's be honest here. Lucas's most important contribution tonight was that he allowed each of our other three guards to get some rest. And, for Lucas, that's good enough for me. This is especially true after watching Cory Joseph doing mountain-climbers outside the free throw line because he was cramping against Illinois. Like I said about Joseph, it would also really be nice if Lucas could get his outside shot to start falling, as he still hasnt made a 3-pointer during the entire season.

Free Throw Watch: Texas hit 15-19 free throws tonight. Huzzah!

Next Game: Saturday vs. Rice at 3 PM

Hook 'Em!

OSU Game as "Texts From Last Night"

txtwstr7 — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:51:27 -0000

Above everything else, going to football games at DKR is supposed to be fun. And, for the last decade, Texas Longhorns fans who spent money on football tickets shouldnt have too many complaints. Sure, there's been a few disappointing losses, but they are vastly overshadowed by all the thunderous beatdowns against conference opponents.

This year...not so much. This year has not been fun. Especially at DKR. And that lack of fun could not have been more apparent from the reactions of the crowd at the Oklahoma State game. It was a crowd that was angry, but also somewhat accepting over our fate. We were expected to lose, it quickly became apparent that we were going to lose, and then we lost. And it was not fun. At all.

After the jump, and in the spirit of textsfromlastnight.com, I wanted to share some of my text conversations with the BON Community...like the last couple of weeks, a few of these entries were contributed by other BON authors.

(xxx): Are we going to win tonight?

(xxx): Probably not.

(xxx): I know. I'm just still not used to this "underdog" thing.

(xxx): If there was a stat for "towel waving," our bench would be very highly ranked

(xxx): They really do wave the [heck] out of those things.

(xxx): Are you at the game?

(xxx): Yup.

(xxx): Sucker! I'm watching Pacquiao instead.

(xxx): We're going to have more advertisements than points today

(xxx): I may keep track of that during the game

(xxx): Dont. It will just depress you even more.

(xxx): Tucker is our offensive MVP

(xxx): This OSU possession feels really important

(xxx): Which is why it took them exactly two plays to score that drive

(xxx): This is hopeless

(xxx): Ball game?

(xxx): It was ballgame at 9-3

(xxx): That's actually when I texted you. This team just waits to give up.

(xxx): Do we actually use 11 players on d? There's so much uncovered space tonight

(xxx): If our team decides to quit after halftime, we could lose by 40 points

(xxx): Is it bad that I'm hoping Gundy shows some mercy?

(xxx): Ugly half.

(xxx): Bad things, brother. This team is in eternal preseason.

(xxx): Amen to that. All my football teams are taking the year off.

(xxx): Our offense is just like the current sky...starless.

(xxx): I'm still convinced the stars are there somewhere

(xxx): I'm glad Mack just called us "the best fans in America" in an advertisement to a half-empty stadium

(xxx): There's a guy in my section chanting "We want Case"

(xxx): That might be the only thing that could make this game even worse

(xxx): The return of the "Oh My God" girl from the UCLA game and the dude rubbing his nipples on Godzillatron are the current highlights of being at this game

(xxx): Yeah, those made me smile, unlike what is happening on the field

(xxx): This is miserable. I dont even want to be here. Right now, I'm cold and sad.

(xxx): ABC just switched from the Texas game to the USC game

(xxx): I blame you for this season. You finally graduated and everything fell apart

(xxx): Just kidding! I blame Greg Davis.

(xxx): There is no one within 9 rows of us now. This place is a ghost town.

(xxx): Our fanbase is in an epic meltdown right now. It's sad to watch. It's one thing to be spoiled and another thing to be stupid.

(xxx): We're driving to Houston after the game

(xxx) When you get to Houston, see if you can find a heart for this team to borrow.

(xxx): And some plays where the receivers catch the ball while running.

(xxx): Are you still at the game?

(xxx): Yup

(xxx): Why? Why dont you just leave?

(xxx): Because of the undergrads wearing tight jeans and hooker boots a few rows in front of me

(xxx): Part 3 is whiskey

(xxx): You want to go to the FAU game next week?

(xxx): Nope. I dont think I'm the only one, either.

(xxx): It's gonna be bad. Exactly how bad will depend on the final score.

(xxx): Word.

As always, feel free to include your own conversations below...

Hook 'Em!

KSU Game as "Texts From Last Night"...

txtwstr7 — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 03:25:07 -0000

All in all, I had a pretty good weekend. I passed the Texas Bar Exam, got engaged, and celebrated both events with friends. Life was good. Life was real good. Life was good enough that I actually thought Texas could walk out of Manhattan with a victory. I didnt know if Texas would win, but I thought they would keep it close. As it turns out, I thought wrong. Unlike my own silly thoughts, most of my friends and family were fully expecting a lopsided beating. And, well, that's pretty much exactly what happened.

After the jump, and in the spirit of textsfromlastnight.com, I wanted to share some of my text conversations with the BON Community...like the last couple of weeks, a few of these entries were contributed by other BON authors.

(xxx): Did I really wait all day to watch THIS?

(xxx): They scored in three plays. Three.

(xxx): Kirkendoll blocking on that pass play might be the dumbest thing I've seen all season.

(xxx): And it's not like I have a shortage of plays to choose from.

(xxx): Are our WRs or the Hellraisers a bigger embarrassment.

(xxx): Our WRs. I actually respect the Hellraisers for being there tonight.

(xxx): When it rains it pours

(xxx): Or it just clangs off your hands

(xxx): At least we know how to fake a FG. Oh wait no we dont

(xxx): That's really the least of my worries...and it really is just a sign of our desperation.

(xxx): Our D is already making this guy look like Vince

(xxx): If there's one thing our guys avoid, it's finding open space in which to run

(xxx): Not true. Our safeties avoid trying to plug running lanes or cutting off open pass routes.

(xxx): KSU may not complete a pass tonight

(xxx): Why would they even try?

(xxx): I think I tried to run that fake punt in middle school during a Madden game.

(xxx): Did it work?

(xxx): No, I fumbled it.

(xxx): But at least I didnt run the play to the short side of the field...

(xxx): The announcers are wrong about only 2 of their players touching the ball so far.

(xxx): It's actually a lot more. He forgot about their DBs who caught passes from GG.

(xxx): We're still 30-6 over the last three seasons, right?

(xxx): We're winning in total yards!!!!!!!!!!!

(xxx): So this is just a fluke, right?

(xxx): Steve Moore, man. Steve Moore.

(xxx): Another penalty and Mack is clapping. I'd rather be watching a Justin Bieber concent.

(xxx): I feel like I'm already watching a Justin Bieber concert

(xxx): Can you believe this?

(xxx): I already turned it to HBO to watch Avatar.

(xxx): Sadly, that might be more entertaining than this game.

(xxx): Touchdowns are our unobtanium

(xxx): Is this is where Vince comes in to lead the big comeback?

(xxx): Nope. Colt doesn't either.

(xxx): I wish this team could play the 2005 team in a scrimmage. That would be awesome.

(xxx): It took KSU 54 seconds to score in the first half....lets see if they can beat that.

(xxx): But we get the ball first.

(xxx): Never mind.

(xxx): Wow. Just wow.

(xxx): In 2010, I know to just expect the unexpected. Except in the bad way.

(xxx): BON was just on TV!

(xxx): Did they just say you blog from your parent's basement?

(xxx): Dunno. Not watching right now.

(xxx): I think that's what they said about BON. Y'all just got burned, 2005-style.

(xxx): We just started a power hour at the house in honor of Gilbert

(xxx): Any special rules?

(xxx): We're taking a shot every time he squints

(xxx): This is rock bottom, right?

(xxx): I asked that same question to a couple people. They all had the same response: FAU

(xxx): People in this bar are laughing at us. At this point, all I can do is just laugh along...

(xxx): From MNC game to no bowl? That's ridiculous.

(xxx): I mean, this isnt the NFL.

(xxx): Dude, this doesnt even feel like high school...

(xxx): Does your big weekend make this feel better?

(xxx): Yeah, it kinda does. Sense of perspective, I guess...

(xxx): I was hoping you'd say no.

(xxx): Because I dont really have anything to build off of right now

(xxx): Their 2 star QB spent the entire game outrunning our 4-star defense.

(xxx): And their 3-star DB's spent the whole game intercepting our 5-star QB.

(xxx): That really kinda sums the game up, doesnt it?

Feel free to post your own comments and conversations below...

Hook 'em!

Baylor Game as "Texts From Last Night"...

txtwstr7 — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 04:55:50 -0000

This past week, I kept telling myself that the loss to Iowa State would be rock-bottom for this season. I didnt know if we'd actually beat Baylor (or KSU or OSU or A&M), but I didnt know how the team could possibly look any worse than last week. The pitiful performance against ISU was reflected in the text messages I received during the game. The team was so bad last week that it was almost comical. Some of the texts last week were pretty funny. Tonight, they were mostly sad. And angry. The type of anger that transcends humor.

After the jump, and in the spirit of textsfromlastnight.com, I wanted to share some text conversations with the BON Community...like last week, a few of these entries were contributed by other BON authors.

(xxx): If you were an elite RB, where would you go to school?

(xxx): Texas

(xxx): Ok, where would you *objectively* go to school?

(xxx): Oregon.

(xxx): Or Alabama. Or Nebraska.

(xxx): I agree. You can stop now.

(xxx): Are you doing a "text" post for this game?

(xxx): Probably...

(xxx): What do I have to do to make it?

(xxx): Say something poignant or funny...

(xxx): If we lose, I will freaking lose my (mind) and beat the (heck) out of someone wearing a (bad) costume.

(xxx): Sadly, that might work....

(xxx): Why is Curtis Brown still fielding punts?

(xxx): Because "we're texas." Seems to be the best and worst thing about this program right now.

(xxx): The Rangers are playing into November. I'm worried the Longhorns are going to quit in October.

(xxx): FALL ON THE BALL!!!!!!!!!!!!! (from multiple people)

(xxx): It's true. Hix is the Flozell Adams of this football team.

(xxx): We play football like Jordan Hamilton plays defense. And that's saying something.

(xxx): No leadership from this team. It's like Roy's senior year.

(xxx): We no longer "own" DKR...instead, we decided to start renting it to our opponents this season.

(xxx): We should just start rushing 11 at every punt.

(xxx): Baylor? (from an OU fan)

(xxx): I'm killing myself. This is pathetic.

(xxx): You dont get to kill yourself. Misery needs company.

(xxx): I can’t watch, tell me when it’s over.

(xxx): Lemme know if we make a comeback.

(xxx): Just stopped Baylor. Getting ball back.

(xxx): Ok, you'll NEVER guess what just happened on the punt...

(xxx): You're joking. You have to be joking.

(xxx): We just ran the ball, inside the 10, down 11, with 4 minutes to go.

(xxx): And we just did it again.

(xxx): And now a timeout!!!!! WOW!

(xxx): The plane has crashed into the GD mountain.

(xxx): Should I keep caring about this team? It really doesnt look like they care if they win or not.

(xxx): Did anyone look like they wanted to be there tonight?

(xxx): RGIII. And Finley. And Briles. Well, all of their guys.

(xxx): Duh. What about our guys?

(xxx): No.

(xxx): Does THIS mean Greg Davis is finally gone?

(xxx): Dunno. Still not sure.

(xxx): : (

(xxx): This is funny when it happens to ND and USC.

(xxx): Not so much when it happens to us.

Feel free to post your own comments and conversations below...

Pundit Roundup Comes Out of Hibernation! Again!

txtwstr7 — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:50:08 -0000

Like the Texas football team, the PR Crew decided to take a few weeks off this season. Unlike the Texas Football team, I think the excuses (i.e. work) for the break in PR columns are actually legitimate. We even aggressively sought out a fellow BON writer to help fill the writing void for this week.

After the jump, this week's edition discusses the "war" reference made by Derek Dooley, highlights the importance of a single sentence in an older column from Kirk Bohls, and adds a new--and unique--member to the Philosopher's Club.

THE SILLY BATTLE OVER DEREK DOOLEY'S WWII REFERENCE

by 40AS

This week's winner of the misguided rush to judgment award is Gregg Doyel of CBSSports.com for this tweet about Tennessee head coach Derek Dooley:

Derek Dooley just compared his team to the D-Day invasion, when thousands of Americans died. Kiffin's gone, and the UT coach got dumber?

Let's get right into this. What, exactly, did Derek Dooley do? Did he call his men soldiers like Kellen Winslow? Did he suggest his football team losing was comparable to 9/11 or Pearl Harbor like Nick Saban? Did he compare his football team to an invasion? No, of course not. He made an intelligent, deep, sophisticated, historically accurate analogy. Oh the horror!

Dooley said at his Monday presser:

"Right now we're like the Germans in World War II. Here comes the boats, they're coming. You got the binoculars ... it's like, ‘Oh, my God, the invasion is coming' I don't want the German people to get upset at me, I'm not attacking them, but that's what happened. You had one group, they weren't worried about what the plan was and orders and all that. When the war hits, things change. You've got to go. You had the other group, and they go, ‘Wait a minute, they told us the invasion was way further north,' where we had the empty tanks and we were hiding Patton out. ‘We weren't ready for this, now what do we do?' ‘We better wait until Rommel tells us what to do.'"

BFeldmanESPN: Cam Newton is hitting 74% of his passes vs. the blitz & has a 8-0 TD-INT ratio. No blitz: he's at 62% and 5-5, per ESPN Stats&Info.

GameDayFootball: RT @jeremyjacob: #WWIT that #Baylor would be ranked in the polls AND leading the Big 12 South after 8 games! #sicem

Now, full disclosure, last season I compared A&M mistakes in the Texas-Aggy game to the Egyptian army's decision to come out from under the safety of air cover, texting AO the following: "in 73, when the Egyptians came out from under air cover to attack the Israelis and got clobbered, an Israeli general called it the moment they started acting like them and we acted like us...feels like that a bit."

So maybe I'm just a sucker for good historical analogies.

It may seem like semantics, but there's a huge chasm between somebody comparing football to something

Hey, You know who's Notre LAME? Rick McMahan! Likely based on Lane Kiffin's statement that Matt Barkley would be a "front-runner" for the Heisman if USC hadnt lost two games, McMahan wrote a very disjointed article over the issue.

Now, there's a lot to be said for Matt Barkley having a quietly underrated season. He's played really well, and he's on a roll. His last two games against Stanford and California have been particularly impressive. There's also a lot to be said for the tendency to place too much emphasis on a team's record in picking Heisman candidates, instead of an individual's contribution to that record. There's even potentially something to be said about USC receiving less coverage than usual due to their sanctions, which will hurt Barkley's Heisman chances. This article touches on these points, but then it goes too far in trying to prove its premise. After failing to mention that Barkley had some clunkers against weaker competition, the article says "if leadership was a quantifiable trait, Barkley would be leading the country in this department, too." Naw, dawg. Just....no. Not even gonna go there.

Matt Barkley may very well wind up being a legitimate Heisman candidate. The Trojans' marquee game against Oregon this week could legitimize his candidacy and put him in the discussion. But let's wait and see what happens in his next few starts before prematurely giving him additional points for good looks, moxie, leadership, or any other intangibles. Right now, Barkley is a very, very good QB for a barely ranked team whose coach wishes he was a great QB for a highly ranked team. And that's about it.

legitimately meaningful and important (like war) on the one hand and an individual reciting the lessons of leadership and achieving success that come from historical milestones like the D-Day invasion (or in this case failure to defend Fortress Europe).

Football is not war, but war sometimes produces men leading at their finest and often men failing to lead. These successes and failures teach us things, and there should be no shame in a coach using those lessons. Of course for Doyel it must have seen like low-hanging fruit in a profession that has become entirely relying on those types of catches for sustenance.

Anyone that is familiar with famed military historian Victor David Hanssen would find Dooley's comments familiar. Rather than compare his team to the D-Day invasion, as Doyel alleges, Dooley is saying that his team has no individual leadership at the player level. This critical leadership void prevents the players from doing what is necessary without guidance from the top, similar to the German defense under Rommel being hampered by their overreliance on his orders at a time when initiative was needed (Rommel was at a wedding at the time). Initiative at the individual level - which Tennessee apparently lacks - is a facet of successful leadership in almost everything, so a big kudos to Derek Dooley for an apt metaphor.

We won't issue judgment over whether Dooley's actually good coach, but he'd make a good historian. Doyel on the other hand...

WHEN A LITTLE SAYS A LOT

by txtwstr7

"I've never done it before, but I thought, 'You know what? There's still a bunch of games to be played. Who knows what can happen?' Heck, LSU got in it a few years ago with two losses, right? Some people don't see the game, only look at the score, as they vote."

Usually, players are the only ones admitted to the Philosopher's Club, since they tend to philosophize--especially on Twitter--at an extremely high level. But, this week, the Club is going to buck that trend and make an exception for Bob Stoops. His quote after the Missouri game succinctly summarizes the deepest problems within both the media and the BCS system. I'm not saying what Bob Stoops did was right, but I understand the rationale for his decision. And that's just sad.

I think everyone agrees it was pretty incredible that Pat Forde received carte blanche access to the UT Football Program for a week. It was a win-win. Pat wrote a dynamite article to a worldwide audience, and Mack's hagiography was read by a worldwide audience. The article served a lot of purposes. It gave fans a wider perspective of Mack Brown. It gave recruits a better glimpse into Texas Football. And, apparently, it gave Kirk Bohls an excuse to avoid doing his job a few weeks ago.

Now, I don't usually read his columns, but this one produced a series of e-mails among the BON authors. It's from a few weeks ago, but it remains appropriate for our purposes here at Pundit Roundup.

The article didn't really break any new ground (shocking, I know) in the buildup to the Nebraska game, but one sentence particularly stands out. In the article, Bohls said "fans have to wonder if Mack is preaching accountability. With his staff as well as his players. We're hopeful, but just not sure, because only Pat Forde is allowed behind closed doors."

If you want to know why local sportswriters are a dying breed, that sentence probably tells you everything you need to know. This piece of "commentary"--not reporting--simply involves admitting ignorance of a closed-door issue and taking a potshot at someone who got better access. That's what unpaid and whiny bloggers do! Not good enough, Kirk...

ISU Game as "Texts From Last Night"

txtwstr7 — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:04:51 -0000

"Did that really just happen?"

In the span of less than 24 hours, I asked this exact same question while experiencing the highest and lowest moments for my two favorite teams in the last decade. Still high on life from the Texas Rangers winning the pennant, I drove to Austin on about an hour's sleep to watch the Texas Longhorns continue salvaging their season by curb-stomping Iowa State. Except they didnt. At all. As y'all know, we lost at DKR to a team that got absolutely demolished by Utah and Oklahoma.

As usually happens during a UT loss--and even during some wins--I received a flurry of angry text messages from my friends and relatives. After the jump, and in the spirit of textsfromlastnight.com, I wanted to share some of these conversations with the BON Community...for the sake of full disclosure, a few of these entries were contributed by other BON authors.

(xxx): Great Crowd!

(xxx): Right now, there arent enough students in the south endzone to do the flash cards

(xxx): Is the stadium as empty as it looks on TV?

(xxx): No. It's emptier...

(xxx): I'm taking notes and emailing GD in the morning with my complaints.

(xxx): GD doesnt use email. Too modern. Try a telegram...

(xxx): Chykie.

(xxx): Earnest.

(xxx): Garrett.

(xxx): Mitchell.

(xxx): Believe it or not, just sending you their names is somewhat cathartic.

(xxx): The old baton guy will be here today, right?

(xxx): Think so...

(xxx): Good. That's half the reason I decided to stay. We suck.

(xxx): We should change our sponsor from Nike to UA

(xxx): Then we might actually protect this house

(xxx): Will losing to ISU help us get rid of Greg Davis?

(xxx): No.

(xxx): : (

(xxx): A turnover!

(xxx): I forgot what those feel like

(xxx): Well, I guess we're getting less bad (sent during 4th quarter)

(xxx): I think I know how Aggies feel...

(xxx): Is this as bad as I think it is?

(xxx): Ask me two hours from now...

(xxx): Yes, it is... (Sent two hours later)

(xxx): Are we going to be favored to beat Baylor next week?

(xxx): Depends on if they beat KSU tonight...

(xxx): If they do, they might be ranked...

(xxx): We need to beat them and OSU.

(xxx): If we dont, the game against A&M could be for last place in B12 South.

(xxx): God.

(xxx): The William and Mary fans just laughed at the score of your game

(xxx): Dont know why I told you that

(xxx): Sorry

(xxx): Have we ever lost to ISU before?

(xxx): No.

(xxx): Didnt think so. At least they beat Tech this year.

(xxx): Dude...re-read what you just sent.

(xxx): At least you still have World Series tickets. I root for the Astros and Longhorns

(xxx): My life sucks right now

(xxx): What are the positives from today's game?

(xxx): Not much. No stupid personal foul penalties from our D?

(xxx): WE CAN BUILD ON THIS!

(xxx): Football season is over. How long until basket...base....damn.

(xxx): What are the chances Texas could steal Gus Malzahn? He's amazing.

(xxx): Isnt Auburn just our farm system for coaches anyways?

Feel free to add your own text conversations below...

Hook 'em!

Big 12 CBB Previews from ESPN

txtwstr7 — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:16:00 -0000

As part of their summer previews for college basketball, ESPN recently published two articles over the Big 12. Texas seems to be the consensus Wild Card of the conference. Here's the key sections from each article.

From the Texas section of the Best Case/Worst Case article, which doesnt seem to acknowledge the departure of Varez Ward:

Best case: Let's all be honest and say we have no clue where to go with this one. Predicting a team based on talent is easy. Predicting how that talent will mesh together -- and how all the little things basketball players do to make each other better or worse will balance out -- is much more difficult. Based on the former, Texas should be a Big 12 title contender. Based on the latter, who knows? The Longhorns will need to incorporate talented shooting guard Cory Joseph into an already overloaded backcourt, while Tristan Thompson will have to play well with small forward Jordan Hamilton, who could be primed for a breakout season. If Barnes can put the puzzle pieces together -- he couldn't in 2009-10 -- there's no reason for this Texas team to languish in the middle of the conference for another season.

Worst case: Worst case is pretty much what happened last season. The team has talent, but for whatever reason that talent doesn't jell, and what looks on paper to be one of the better teams in the country -- both on the roster and in tempo-free reports -- ends up with a mediocre finish and a handful of NBA draft defections. Weak.

The Summer Shootaround section is a great early look at the conference this year. I wont blockquote all the Texas stuff (since y'all should go read the whole thing), but here is something I found interesting. I dont remember seeing this quote anywhere, but it's a potential explanation for last year.

3. Can Rick Barnes put it together? Last season was not Barnes' finest. The Texas Longhorns were one of the nation's most talented teams, and for the first half of the season they looked it. Then, inexplicably, the wheels came off, and the Horns went from being the undefeated No. 1 team in the country to a 9-7 Big 12 finish. Somewhere in there, Barnes admitted to an ESPN The Magazine reporter that he was less concerned with winning a national championship than with getting players to the NBA. Whoops. This season's Longhorns are nearly as talented as last season's team. Barnes put together another impressive recruiting class that features two of the best recruits you'll see anywhere in forward Tristan Thompson and guard Cory Joseph. So talent is not the problem. Whether Barnes can find a way to get that talent to co-exist -- to function as more than the sum of its impressive parts, especially in the backcourt -- will say a lot about whether UT's headman is a college basketball coach or a talent scout with nicer suits.

Hook 'Em!

From the Texas section of the Best Case/Worst Case article, which doesnt seem to acknowledge the departure of Varez Ward:

Best case: Let's all be honest and say we have no clue where to go with this one. Predicting a team based on talent is easy. Predicting how that talent will mesh together -- and how all the little things basketball players do to make each other better or worse will balance out -- is much more difficult. Based on the former, Texas should be a Big 12 title contender. Based on the latter, who knows? The Longhorns will need to incorporate talented shooting guard Cory Joseph into an already overloaded backcourt, while Tristan Thompson will have to play well with small forward Jordan Hamilton, who could be primed for a breakout season. If Barnes can put the puzzle pieces together -- he couldn't in 2009-10 -- there's no reason for this Texas team to languish in the middle of the conference for another season.

Worst case: Worst case is pretty much what happened last season. The team has talent, but for whatever reason that talent doesn't jell, and what looks on paper to be one of the better teams in the country -- both on the roster and in tempo-free reports -- ends up with a mediocre finish and a handful of NBA draft defections. Weak.

3. Can Rick Barnes put it together? Last season was not Barnes' finest. The Texas Longhorns were one of the nation's most talented teams, and for the first half of the season they looked it. Then, inexplicably, the wheels came off, and the Horns went from being the undefeated No. 1 team in the country to a 9-7 Big 12 finish. Somewhere in there, Barnes admitted to an ESPN The Magazine reporter that he was less concerned with winning a national championship than with getting players to the NBA. Whoops. This season's Longhorns are nearly as talented as last season's team. Barnes put together another impressive recruiting class that features two of the best recruits you'll see anywhere in forward Tristan Thompson and guard Cory Joseph. So talent is not the problem. Whether Barnes can find a way to get that talent to co-exist -- to function as more than the sum of its impressive parts, especially in the backcourt -- will say a lot about whether UT's headman is a college basketball coach or a talent scout with nicer suits.

Hook 'Em!